Re: [TLS] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tls-applayerprotoneg-03.txt> (Transport Layer Security (TLS) Application Layer Protocol Negotiation Extension) to Proposed Standard

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Fri, 13 December 2013 17:27 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DCCF1AE340; Fri, 13 Dec 2013 09:27:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.347
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.347 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553] autolearn=no
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 hxsBE7eFtRqI; Fri, 13 Dec 2013 09:27:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDCE71AE126; Fri, 13 Dec 2013 09:27:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.20.30.90] (50-0-66-41.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.0.66.41]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id rBDHRNAY012228 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 13 Dec 2013 10:27:25 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
X-Authentication-Warning: hoffman.proper.com: Host 50-0-66-41.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [50.0.66.41] claimed to be [10.20.30.90]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.0 \(1822\))
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <20131213171608.10285.15352.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 09:27:22 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <9D6C4F2B-25ED-4A2A-AE89-03122D7213B8@vpnc.org>
References: <20131213171608.10285.15352.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: "<tls@ietf.org>" <tls@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1822)
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Last Call: <draft-ietf-tls-applayerprotoneg-03.txt> (Transport Layer Security (TLS) Application Layer Protocol Negotiation Extension) to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 13 Dec 2013 17:27:33 -0000

The shepherd writeup for this document (current version at <http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-applayerprotoneg/shepherdwriteup/>) is not accurate, and that has a major effect on the IETF Last call. For question 9, it says:

==========
(9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it?

the document represents strong consensus
==========

A hum was taken at IETF 87 for the WG to pick between this proposal and another; there were many hums in the room for each, with more for this proposal. That hum was not taken to the WG mailing list. Since then, many people have given strong reasons to prefer the other proposal for technical reasons.

--Paul Hoffman