From nobody Sat Oct 2 10:13:25 2021 Return-Path: X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D5CD3A105B for ; Sat, 2 Oct 2021 10:13:23 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.896 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id k5i7lq_rXXQx for ; Sat, 2 Oct 2021 10:13:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-io1-xd33.google.com (mail-io1-xd33.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d33]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E1FB83A0D74 for ; Sat, 2 Oct 2021 10:13:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-io1-xd33.google.com with SMTP id s20so15357713ioa.4 for ; Sat, 02 Oct 2021 10:13:18 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=SLK7bqIkFdKlUFxyxjY4s+AdakZtvO4HCefb7y/it/M=; b=5JXX1ldL1a9df5mzMLUB+CMaLxnKzSw3w9/6oTDWrql8ZaoyVfj3v6SR17ZR1tAjCi 8gNf/Acg1ru4DE4yMCmLjRwrJ95biU0klmX4HIw0ZMD7LH13rBSnDZkuUfW7wDgkroPI sPwIxEcUmduM8U9JmC/Gq+rytAagVnbPmGtxWAh+vl7gOeqqEB9cI8XjjGWLZSoEHqYF RbN4DMlaM9K0dQli0RLyLJGsUWvtaL9m3niBzBAPX7MhVPhOYb1F33UYZfdPdFVHuHQ4 nTx/NvZPoz2qosrGgpeo0blG0M3EDTBd/IIE4j/aJfDvw8NWW26WKY3VpAWLBH26GtQk QgoA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=SLK7bqIkFdKlUFxyxjY4s+AdakZtvO4HCefb7y/it/M=; b=O55nyZtiw58FIwh+Yn01EsMfeNFb3LfGxK2VvEPkWsW5/Qx3GZgbuIJDxlMHt1r/rO 7GMe51KYytoNeUI0OdDRp4k5jo6tiFqnS0Dm2XUM9U5BnZmU3sXrG/n6KvPlAxzQfs5M KMSYo/ET9pp1o4tKb4vmlD5ed9WuM+QR1IsUxEvB+aPsFNK6FbvfLR8Xm2HETiUqv9PP k5KlSKx9v1Ma4Y8P+GyANDTkXlgoXZJTJtyeSdHL0FULeJGKNktv67brAebc6B+J3dRM D+tOm48J4h5oGM+xhVz9dSNZE1VahfNBniBAO8qYAdthCCUy8F9Jkbq5LyJY/HT3wp/L FhvA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533yY5AvgyaBORmlfc4bmFKBdpyTPmOccTcvy4IxTD35gHRKky/M 0ZkhKAGL/69TbzeVVEcwnwfWRtTztJ0y5G+yD7JLJhuvhwg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJz3dP8Hff0s3UgqxEpIsOmfRjMiPx6OvacE8V90JfoPEfGT44RMX8DPziiwW/ybaS5ZkXkS2JUfixSOWtWPfP0= X-Received: by 2002:a6b:5f1b:: with SMTP id t27mr2959143iob.213.1633194798082; Sat, 02 Oct 2021 10:13:18 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <163311243544.13917.11736165165419008870@ietfa.amsl.com> <20211001190002.GC98042@kduck.mit.edu> <92ed26c1-bfde-43c1-93f4-2bbdbd4f6ec1@www.fastmail.com> <8796f867-12b8-41f8-b124-82b3ab0e2d32@www.fastmail.com> In-Reply-To: From: Eric Rescorla Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2021 10:12:42 -0700 Message-ID: To: Sam Whited Cc: Rob Sayre , "" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ca02ad05cd61cb23" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [TLS] Fwd: Last Call: (Channel Bindings for TLS 1.3) to Proposed Standard X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 02 Oct 2021 17:13:24 -0000 --000000000000ca02ad05cd61cb23 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 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 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. > > > =E2=80=94Sam > > On Fri, Oct 1, 2021, at 23:32, Rob Sayre wrote: > > Makes sense a goal=E2=80=94I 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 > --000000000000ca02ad05cd61cb23 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I want to be clear that I don't think this is abo= ut credit. My concern is purely about accurately reflecting the level of co= nfidence 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 wit= h 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 s= ame
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 becomin= g
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 peopl= e
feel better about it.


=E2=80=94Sam

On Fri, Oct 1, 2021, at 23:32, Rob Sayre wrote:
> Makes sense a goal=E2=80=94I 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
--000000000000ca02ad05cd61cb23--