Re: [TLS] Fwd: Last Call: <draft-ietf-kitten-tls-channel-bindings-for-tls13-09.txt> (Channel Bindings for TLS 1.3) to Proposed Standard

I want to be clear that I don't think this is about credit. My concern is
purely about accurately reflecting the level of confidence one should have
in this mechanism.

-Ekr

On Fri, Oct 1, 2021 at 8:43 PM Sam Whited <sam@samwhited.com> wrote:

> This is just a registration with IANA more than anything else; this
> required almost no work compared to the many people and many years spent
> on TLS. I don't believe marking this as an update implies any flaw in
> TLS, or any presumption that this is somehow its equal in terms of
> effort. This isn't a competition, it's just logically part of the same
> ecosystem.
>
> If we start thinking about one document referencing or updating another
> as somehow being presumptuous or implying that we're trying to retcon
> the other authors work I don't see the culture of the IETF ever becoming
> a very inviting one. Similarly, if we decide that every document that
> updates another document has to be its equal in terms of effort, no
> documents will ever get updates until they are ready to be entirely
> replaced. Lots of documents receive small updates, this is no different.
>
> Would it make a difference if I added a section thanking the TLS authors
> for their work and for including bits like EKM that make keying material
> possible? I'd be happy to include such a section if it would make people
> feel better about it.
>
>
> —Sam
>
> On Fri, Oct 1, 2021, at 23:32, Rob Sayre wrote:
> > Makes sense a goal—I think the objection is more that updating 8446 on
> > paper here is presumptuous, since that document took orders of
> > magnitude more work.
> >
> > That should not detract from the work in this new draft, but hopefully
> > my message at least makes the disagreement more clear.
>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> TLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>