Re: [TLS] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-tls-grease-03: (with COMMENT)

[Mirja Kuehlewind <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ben,

Thanks for the explanation.

I would think this is actually a PS given it extents a protocol based on the extension point this protocol provides. Maybe it is not really adding a new function but it also kind of is: I would call probing for non-compliant implementations a protocol function. I mean if we would specify greasing for a new protocol, I think it would simply be part of the main spec.

Mirja



> On 16. Aug 2019, at 05:39, Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 08:57:43AM -0700, Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker wrote:
>> Mirja Kühlewind 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:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>> 
>> Sorry one more comment/question I forgot earlier: Why is this document
>> informational? Shouldn't it be at least experimental?
> 
> I added a note to the shepherd writeup's "intended document status" entry:
> 
> AD NOTE: Note that this has been successfully deployed for
> over a year; it's not really an "experiment" anymore but rather
> a useful thing that people do, both in TLS and elsewhere.  This
> is informational in the sense that "here is a thing you can do,
> and some information about why you might want to do it".  There's
> no real protocol -- you send some codepoints and expect the other
> endpoint to not change behavior as a result -- so it doesn't make sense
> as a proposed standard.  I suppose one could argue that it is a BCP
> since it is for the health of the ecosystem, but that does not really
> feel like a good match.  So to me, Informational is the right status.
> 
> -Ben
>