[TLS] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates-04

Dan Romascanu <dromasca@gmail.com> Tue, 20 February 2018 10:44 UTC

Return-Path: <dromasca@gmail.com>
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 01FE412D775; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 02:44:37 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Dan Romascanu <dromasca@gmail.com>
To: ops-dir@ietf.org
Cc: tls@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates.all@ietf.org, dromasca@gmail.com
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.72.2
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <151912347695.29703.11473433478669184845@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 02:44:37 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/EYrxqhQ9g1OmJLX3C5c1UNI2ECc>
Subject: [TLS] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates-04
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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 Feb 2018 10:44:37 -0000

Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
Review result: Has Issues

I am the assigned OPS-DIR reviewer for this draft. The OPS DIrectorate reviews
a great part of the IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the OPS ADs.
Please treat with these comments as with all other IETF LC comments. Please
wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new
version of the draft.

This document which updates several TLS and DTLS RFCs describes a number of
changes to TLS IANA registries that range from adding notes to the registry all
the way to changing the registration policy. This is not a protocol or a
protocol update document, thus a full OPS-DIR review conforming to RFC 5706 is
not needed. From an operational point of view this document is important, as
operators may need to refer to IANA registries in their daily work of ensuring
functionality and maintaining networks where TLS and DTLS are used.

The document is Ready from an OPS-DIR perspective, with a few minor issues. The
issues listed below are useful for all categories of users of this document:
implementers, operators, end users. None is them is major, but it would be good
to be addressed before the document approval.

1. The document adds a Recommended column to many of the TLS registries. The
rationale and meaning of a parameter being or not being Recommended are
detailed in Section 6. It would be useful from an operator perspective to add
to the registries where the Recommended column is added a text similar to the
one in Section 6, that explains the rationale and the meaning. Something on the
lines of:

* 'If a parameter is marked as Recommended, implementations
   should support it. Adding a recommended parameter
   to a registry or updating a parameter to recommended status
   requires standards action. Not all parameters defined in standards
   track documents need to be marked as recommended.

   If an item is not marked as Recommended it does not necessarily mean
   that it is flawed, rather, it indicates that either the item has not
   been through the IETF consensus process, has limited applicability,
   or is intended only for specific use cases.'

2. Also Section 6. All sections that add Recommended columns need to also
modify the References column in order to add a reference to this document.

3. Section 14. IANA shall update the reference for this registry to also refer
this document.

4. Section 18. s/ Criteria that SHOULD be applied by the Designated Experts
includes determining whether the proposed registration duplicates existing
functionality/Criteria that SHOULD be applied by the Designated Experts
includes determining whether the proposed registration does not duplicate
existing functionality/