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

Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com> Tue, 27 February 2018 14:12 UTC

Return-Path: <sean@sn3rd.com>
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 6ED5112D951 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Feb 2018 06:12:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=sn3rd.com
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 mTJdhiD6fRxD for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 27 Feb 2018 06:12:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk0-x22e.google.com (mail-qk0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 226E112D952 for <tls@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Feb 2018 06:11:49 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id s188so23642835qkb.2 for <tls@ietf.org>; Tue, 27 Feb 2018 06:11:49 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sn3rd.com; s=google; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=0WFQrL4Z/jdtO/vivkCQ9GttGvfLSMXRaaUIjjbKsrY=; b=QHYaEKKqTQsCDN0IaHGu01o6f+9RsBLtV96yaoZgZmwd1SEk9QygDmIJFfO3Khx9xt OP+JPHHY2qsoSoaKJDI7drLrBBFJ+7xSonThIRBspwGEFDygo4Ge0piCyu8pDpyOlbcP c98zafOpa5XsVEWsMYUtTNS/eZDqXjh5fTOCA=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=0WFQrL4Z/jdtO/vivkCQ9GttGvfLSMXRaaUIjjbKsrY=; b=pOn5l0cYhai7NVG2/fuw8I2T9d8DNmILSes6YF7POsiRApAcpCWBgKlNGaYIbBF8KV Tuyf3amXDbOUrK6qEVKfztH/2HGzoRjOwT4OfAsr1RBUEahOZmkzlOPgkfbQ8a8JQXQe NjtA5/l2a8psGCxIdVJlc3wZW0ynSptmbLvSXw/aVKPOzfGki8N8w1AojIYU35kHCXLk 4RO6Sm+HnB5ddwzDz+a9zwScm8/lGuc+ZSOQkJ3BgL5Wp9z09wAXKsCIcHCzpq47jnlp 8Tv6WdjsdJzV0lF62FJQpIJNH+seg0mt4YyVrvFqDCIFPDjhtYoO/q9Y1mqwygY/XU4r 8w6A==
X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPCrSW9IXRna2HmqCaUeEXnCDN16MFgV90G5Z9qVpkc9Ci3+ggwT hYxijGGfG2Dasmkfpc6DvcuIqEazGZ4=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELtrNaeWRHxl+3hDNSpKVCsvZXDusxRPws3d3aREP7fbylICnCIetCrNeilDPxE5uwKxWYpmxQ==
X-Received: by 10.55.163.8 with SMTP id m8mr23123628qke.13.1519740708179; Tue, 27 Feb 2018 06:11:48 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [172.16.0.18] ([96.231.218.194]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r51sm7008039qtr.93.2018.02.27.06.11.47 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 27 Feb 2018 06:11:47 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\))
From: Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com>
In-Reply-To: <151912347695.29703.11473433478669184845@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 09:11:46 -0500
Cc: ops-dir@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org, draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates.all@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D27C238D-C8F1-4FBC-A546-4555898CAE99@sn3rd.com>
References: <151912347695.29703.11473433478669184845@ietfa.amsl.com>
To: Dan Romascanu <dromasca@gmail.com>, "<tls@ietf.org>" <tls@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/KLyB5XF958rnTNHH76jerMpRvh4>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates-04
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 27 Feb 2018 14:12:15 -0000


> On Feb 20, 2018, at 05:44, Dan Romascanu <dromasca@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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.’

I’m sure that adding this note wouldn't hurt, but we’re updating all of the registries that are getting a Recommended column to point to this document. 

So I could could go either way here - what do other folks think?

> 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.

So, I think we’ve done that (double checking):

- s8 adds a recommended column and updates references
- s9 adds a recommended column and updates references
- s10 adds a recommended column and updates references
- s13 adds a recommended column and updates references
- s15 adds a recommended column and updates references

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

s4 also updates the references to this document so at first I was confused, but I think you’re looking for:

OLD:

  120   no_application_protocol  Y  [RFC7301]

NEW: 

  120   no_application_protocol  Y  [RFC7301][this-RFC]

PR submitted:
https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates/pull/62

> 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/

I stole this wording from another RFC so I’m leaning towards leaving it as is.

spt