Re: [TLS] AD review of draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate-06
Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Tue, 13 October 2020 18:34 UTC
Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9FEF53A0E25; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 11:34:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.897
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.897 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 g0brKFkx5qmn; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 11:34:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A58A63A0E29; Tue, 13 Oct 2020 11:34:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from kduck.mit.edu ([24.16.140.251]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 09DIYKpk002807 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Tue, 13 Oct 2020 14:34:25 -0400
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 2020 11:34:20 -0700
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com>
Cc: Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>, draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate.all@ietf.org, TLS List <tls@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20201013183420.GB83367@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <20200726212223.GY41010@kduck.mit.edu> <CAHbuEH6YV5HyqEV7DbO=_-9yFEHTS3Q7nH_t=ap_xwzGK=vMWw@mail.gmail.com> <20200813175413.GY92412@kduck.mit.edu> <B1F480D7-437B-48E1-969A-D30D3598CF9D@sn3rd.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <B1F480D7-437B-48E1-969A-D30D3598CF9D@sn3rd.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/AKK3MboiyB-GEg8rfYi0vI6t2Dk>
Subject: Re: [TLS] AD review of draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate-06
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
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." <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, 13 Oct 2020 18:34:33 -0000
Thanks, Sean, the linked pull requests seem to do the trick. Skimming through https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/K9_uA6m0dD_oQCw-5kAbha-Kq5M/ once more, I think I still plan to put out a status-change document to move RFC 5469 (IDEA and DES ciphers) to Historic in parallel with the IETF LC for this document. It is probably not critical that we mention such a change in the document text, though we could if we want to. I think we still need to check for the latest version of the SP800-52r2 reference, too. Thanks again, Ben On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 01:02:07PM -0400, Sean Turner wrote: > Ben, > > Thanks for pointing out I missed a couple. Inline … > > spt > > > On Aug 13, 2020, at 13:54, Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> wrote: > > > > Hi Kathleen, > > > > Also inline. > > > > On Wed, Aug 12, 2020 at 04:29:56PM -0400, Kathleen Moriarty wrote: > >> Hi Ben, > >> > >> Thanks for your review. Some initial responses are inline. > >> > >> On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 5:22 PM Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> wrote: > >> > >>> I found three documents (3656, 4540, 7562) in the list of update targets > >>> that are on the ISE (not IETF) stream. I had talked to Adrian during my > >>> preliminary review, and in principle it is permissible to make those > >>> updates as part of this document, but we will need specific ISE approval > >>> to do so. I am supposed to sync up with him during IETF LC, but the > >>> document needs to be updated to clarify that the updates of ISE > >>> documents are/will be done with permission of the ISE. (Please also try > >>> to double-check that the list is complete; I didn't find an > >>> authoritative list of "all documents on the ISE stream" to grep against, > >>> and I didn't try to have something parse rfc-index.xml to output such a > >>> list. > >>> > >> > >> OK, so you'd like a list added and that's not in your pull request, is that > >> right? We'll figure it out. Thanks in advance with the coordination with > >> Adrian. > > > > That's correct, this is not in my pull request (not least because that list > > of three documents is incomplete -- I sent a more-likely-complete list of 6 > > documents in an off-list follow-up. > > https://www.rfc-editor.org/search/rfc_search_detail.php?stream_name=Independent&page=All > > will get a (presumably authoritative) list of ISE-stream documents, FWIW. > > After going through the list I found six. Here’s some text that addresses the fact that will have permission from the ISE: > https://github.com/tlswg/oldversions-deprecate/pull/6 > > >>> Section 1.1 > >>> > >>> I went through all 83 of the references in the big list, that are > >>> supposed to be ones that "normatively reference TLS 1.0/1.1 or DTLS 1.0, > >>> as well as the shorter list of already-obsoleted documents. > >>> > >>> I won't bore you with my full notes, but there are some particular > >>> things that stood out from the review: > >>> > >>> - We have a separate list of updates for documents that are already > >>> obsolete (but don't say much about why we're going go the extra > >>> bother). However, three of the documents in our main list of updates > >>> (4743, 4744, and 6460) are already Historic, and presumably should be > >>> treated more like the already-obsolete ones. > >>> > >> > >> Obsolete does not mean the same thing as deprecate though. TLSv1.2 has > >> been obsoleted by TLSv1.3, but not deprecated. The deprecation goes the > >> extra step to say not to use it and it triggers many to begin phase out > >> plans. Am I misunderstanding the question? > > > > I think you're misunderstanding the question, yes, sorry. > > > > I think we want the documents that are Historic to be listed separately > > from the other ("regular") updates, in a manner akin to what is already > > done for the documents that are currently obsolete. Or, perhaps, to say > > that there is no point in deprecating something that is already historic, > > and not bother updating those three documents, but it seems okay to keep > > the current status with a comprehensive list of updates. > > How about this: > https://github.com/tlswg/oldversions-deprecate/pull/7 > > spt > >
- [TLS] AD review of draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-dep… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [TLS] AD review of draft-ietf-tls-oldversions… Kathleen Moriarty
- Re: [TLS] AD review of draft-ietf-tls-oldversions… Benjamin Kaduk
- [TLS] Obsolete SCSV!? (was Re: AD review of draft… Sean Turner
- Re: [TLS] Obsolete SCSV!? (was Re: AD review of d… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [TLS] Obsolete SCSV!? (was Re: AD review of d… Salz, Rich
- Re: [TLS] Obsolete SCSV!? (was Re: AD review of d… Sean Turner
- Re: [TLS] Obsolete SCSV!? (was Re: AD review of d… Sean Turner
- Re: [TLS] Obsolete SCSV!? (was Re: AD review of d… Loganaden Velvindron
- Re: [TLS] Obsolete SCSV!? (was Re: AD review of d… Loganaden Velvindron
- Re: [TLS] AD review of draft-ietf-tls-oldversions… Sean Turner
- Re: [TLS] AD review of draft-ietf-tls-oldversions… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [TLS] AD review of draft-ietf-tls-oldversions… Michael D'Errico
- Re: [TLS] AD review of draft-ietf-tls-oldversions… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [TLS] AD review of draft-ietf-tls-oldversions… Michael D'Errico
- Re: [TLS] AD review of draft-ietf-tls-oldversions… Salz, Rich
- Re: [TLS] AD review of draft-ietf-tls-oldversions… Sean Turner
- Re: [TLS] AD review of draft-ietf-tls-oldversions… Benjamin Kaduk