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

Benjamin Kaduk <> Sat, 17 August 2019 23:07 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E44A1200E5; Sat, 17 Aug 2019 16:07:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id szdxYq_DSqFo; Sat, 17 Aug 2019 16:07:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5A8671200CC; Sat, 17 Aug 2019 16:07:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id x7HN78Ww009082 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 17 Aug 2019 19:07:10 -0400
Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2019 18:07:07 -0500
From: Benjamin Kaduk <>
To: Mirja Kuehlewind <>
Cc: The IESG <>,,,,
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [TLS] =?iso-8859-1?q?Mirja_K=FChlewind=27s_No_Objection_on_draft?= =?iso-8859-1?q?-ietf-tls-grease-03=3A_=28with_COMMENT=29?=
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 17 Aug 2019 23:07:15 -0000

On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 09:35:09AM +0200, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote:
> 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.

Re "part of the main spec", perhaps, but presumably not a
mandatory-to-implement one?
To look at it a different way, what kind of interoperability requirements
does GREASE mandate?  Isn't it just the same interoperability requirements
of the main protocol, i.e., an incremental addition of zero?