[TLS] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-tls-tls13-cert-with-extern-psk-03: (with COMMENT)

Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Tue, 17 December 2019 01:50 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: tls@ietf.org
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E83DB120972; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 17:50:57 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-tls-tls13-cert-with-extern-psk@ietf.org, Joseph Salowey <joe@salowey.net>, tls-chairs@ietf.org, joe@salowey.net, tls@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.113.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
Message-ID: <157654745794.24469.3021505269125375774.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 17:50:57 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/5lzgp2FhPI6YkG9p_ecYipEoC6c>
Subject: [TLS] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-tls-tls13-cert-with-extern-psk-03: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tls/>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 01:50:58 -0000

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tls-tls13-cert-with-extern-psk-03: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


* Section 7. The paragraphs that start with “In this extension, the external
PSK preserves secrecy if the EC(DH) key agreement” …” and “In the future, if
the (EC)DH key agreement ..” seem to be saying the same thing differently.

* Section 7. It’s worth mentioning somewhere the obvious thing – how to
generate, distribute, manage the external PSKs is out of scope for this

* Section 7.  Per “TLS 1.3 [RFC8446] has received careful security analysis,
and some informal reasoning shows that the addition of this extension does not
introduce any security defects”, is there a citation for this “informal
reasoning”?  Otherwise, it’s a soft statement.

* Editorial Nits:
- Section 3.  Typo.  s/inclue/include/

- Section 5.1. Typo. s/extension are/extensions are/

- Section 5.1. /Most of those extension are not impacted in any way.  This
section discusses the impacts on the other extensions./Most of those extension
are not impacted in any way by this specification.  However, this section
discusses the extensions that require additional consideration./

- Section 5.1.  Typo. s/may be know to other partiers/may be known to other

- Section 5.1. Typo. s/know to other parties/known to other parties/

- Section 7.  Typo.  s/that external PSK/that the external PSK/