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

Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Tue, 20 August 2019 17:39 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 D1FAD12011C; Tue, 20 Aug 2019 10:39:14 -0700 (PDT)
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-grease@ietf.org, Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com>, tls-chairs@ietf.org, sean@sn3rd.com, tls@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.100.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
Message-ID: <156632275485.502.9271987365148891210.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2019 10:39:14 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/9EWXPF5Oo6sZLzrDD-JOur2gTXA>
Subject: [TLS] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-tls-grease-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, 20 Aug 2019 17:39:15 -0000

Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tls-grease-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:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-grease/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Per the following:

Section 3.1 says “Note that this requires no special processing on the client. 
Clients are already required to reject unknown values  selected by the server.”

Section 4.1 says “Note that this requires no special processing on the server. 
Server are already required to reject unknown values selected by the client.”

These statement don’t seem precisely right.  Per Section 3.1, if a client
understands GREASE enough to put it into a message to the server, and the
server for some reason tries to negotiate this value, isn’t there ‘special
processing' required in the client to the degree that it knows it shouldn’t
accept the value it requested in the negotiation?

(2) Section 7.  Per “GREASE values may not be negotiated …”, is there a reason
this isn’t “must not be negotiated”?