Re: [TLS] EXTERNAL: Re: Authentication Only Ciphersuites RFC

Jack,

There's a bunch here to unpack.

First, the purpose of the current registry structure was to allow code
point registration without forcing the TLS WG to spend time on documents
that don't generally meet its goals. This seems like one such document.

WRT to your points about the benefits of RFC status:

1. Having this approved through the IETF process vs, just ISE would be
beneficial to those wishing to adopt. Why would this be the case? The only
reason I can think of is that having it be an IETF document would imply
that the IETF thought it was OK. But this is the situation we are trying to
avoid with the Not Recommended label.
2. Having this go through the IETF process would get you community review.
Again, here, the idea with the new process is that we don't force the TLS
WG to do that work.

Obviously, individuals should feel free to review this document or not as
they please, but I'm not seeing any compelling reason why TLS-WG should
take it on.

-Ekr

On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 11:49 AM Jack Visoky <jmvisoky@ra.rockwell.com>
wrote:

> Hi Eric,
>
>
>
> Our goal is to have an RFC published as Informational and with the Not
> Recommended status.  We felt having this approved through the IETF process
> vs just ISE would be beneficial to those wishing to adopt, and getting
> community review is also helpful to us and those we represent.
>
>
>
> I suppose one question is whether or not we need this to be a WG item or
> if we can solicit independent shepherding from a chair or AD to get to the
> goal of an Information RFC with Not Recommended status.
>
>
>
> Also, I apologize if I’ve misunderstood or misstated anything, I’m new to
> the IETF processes so certainly could have made a mistake.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> --Jack
>
>
>
> *From:* Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, February 26, 2019 5:53 PM
> *To:* Jack Visoky <jmvisoky@ra.rockwell.com>
> *Cc:* tls@ietf.org
> *Subject:* EXTERNAL: Re: [TLS] Authentication Only Ciphersuites RFC
>
>
>
> [Use caution with links & attachments]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 12:54 PM Jack Visoky <jmvisoky@ra.rockwell.com>
> wrote:
>
> TLS Colleagues,
>
> If you recall we discussed a draft for authentication only ciphersuites
> over email back in August of 2018.  We've since made some updates to that
> draft.  We also have gotten IANA assignments to the authentication only
> ciphersuites for TLS 1.3 and have updated the draft to reflect the new
> assignments.
>
> To that extent, as the IoT community is looking to adopt these
> ciphersuites, we would like to solicit review of the draft:
>
>
>
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-camwinget-tls-ts13-macciphersuites-02
>
>
>
> and request that it be published as informational draft given that the IoT
> forums are looking to adopt its use and the draft can serve as the guide
> for use and interoperability.
>
>
>
> It seems to me that there four somewhat distinct questions:
>
>
>
> 1. Code points
>
> 2. Document level (Info, Exp, PS, etc.)
>
> 3. Recommended status
>
> 4. WG status
>
>
>
> From my perspective, you have code points and you've asked for an
> Informational document, but than can only get you Not Recommended, so
> what's the value of having this be a WG document? Why can't you submit it
> to the ISE or alternately just have people reference the draft?
>
>
>
> -Ekr
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks and Best Regards,
>
>
>
> --Jack (and Nancy)
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> TLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>
>