[TLS] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-tls-padding-02: (with COMMENT)

["Alvaro Retana" <[e-mail]>]

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tls-padding-02: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-padding/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

As Alissa, I was wondering why it wasn’t easier to fix the one
implementation instead.  

The shepherd wrote: "Since then it has been found that this extension can
server (sic) to alleviate issues with issues in several vendor's
products.  There was good consensus to move forward with this document as
it may find further applicability in the future.”  So it looks like the
problem is not just one implementation…

If the WG now thinks that this extension may be valuable for other things
besides fixing bugs, then it might be nice to reword some of the document
to not focus on what seems to be one bug and just present the extension
for what it is: padding.