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

[Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <[e-mail]>]

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”?