Re: [TLS] [OPSEC] OpSec WGLC for draft-ietf-opsec-ns-impact

Jen Linkova <> Wed, 29 July 2020 09:20 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84C9C3A0CD8; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 02:20:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.848
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.848 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 7_zYSqpuadbY; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 02:20:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 74C373A0CAB; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 02:20:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id d14so21494248qke.13; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 02:20:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=PCIBqJNdT+XgBvyacPtUjdn0fM1trOUIZ3mxyNMVfz8=; b=mcc/fneBuLGITTECZQIsb8ktdC//4ylP765crwWy0rlkr1K+sDr0Y0kXdK5GL2CUeG NypqGRUWV7XkrGhykxLspWdKPdd+kcbJjQ7dDuWKIppJO+L9cxTUnP7LDsxVWb+miJ3C 1oe6z+tiFlnVfGXvfNLHdwUz035QDRo8AsIzKS58NA3T4CSsAwCQfcApBvJAT19Kh/gz 0JOYQyXsxUK2P3k3CdM8zmsMPYhoRaAtf+v8VReEQqzAv9QiMNWM1NZYQQ4j7wS6DOC4 qRAmB7xfiHNBotZGM+6tdFa5V/z2fS+3d4dIt73pbQRnM6L43r14BmzfR0klfdDdsbW7 CNKA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=PCIBqJNdT+XgBvyacPtUjdn0fM1trOUIZ3mxyNMVfz8=; b=tsIzL6L0WvvXp/3tMB+rai8ai5kFxPOkNevuAIZe1UUpI6OP5m8rpAIntHHGA7i7NV QHJU0r8LPSDk2sIZGVi8T0BQzfMSUxsSPGQwefy5G27V2Z7WUkogPFKCFHV6I//HiLF8 n6IxTdzaVGVedPEHf+/w2OKOyIMgMwILUrE8oSnotrSU4ptUMKBjOjomvIXWx0kT8Uy5 jNubriLRI0tCQ+3FpN/GIHWPHfnQXORGlbLnvL8uZ4cc4oB6rWGfOsY0IkYrxy8QAcpT qS4apbsJE6pTTwvs7AotfIPR2cPNlT8RqxyZxFhxP+Q7RUZB//ddQrnkm9pWL1sXhOf6 bkXQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5311DdQ0OiWBZEF+g9ltHFwxrreT+1v1MuKW818Sw2bhZHEmoqhD 9G0b4IeKFP25vAts98IFIpubHVye0VjJS8IczS+ZvHYqMKU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyrZuMJIbJDZwqi+qGtNT5nwHm7hckpQrKMed4dyoRCp7l9MUeDQWyfp6RtUgw4Omqf22i3ldmgNEVqN88P5rw=
X-Received: by 2002:a37:9c4b:: with SMTP id f72mr25741472qke.332.1596014443537; Wed, 29 Jul 2020 02:20:43 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Jen Linkova <>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 19:20:32 +1000
Message-ID: <>
To: tom petch <>
Cc: opsec WG <>, "" <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [TLS] [OPSEC] OpSec WGLC for draft-ietf-opsec-ns-impact
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." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2020 09:20:47 -0000

On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 6:41 PM tom petch <> wrote:
> Jen, it is more than that. I think that the IETF way of working is to make comments, get an acknowledgement and a response, from author, others, Chair, AD i.a., discuss the issues, accept or reject changes, new version, rinse and repeat.  In this case, the next post after my comments was WGLC.

Just to clarify:
- I saw your comments not being acknowledged/confirmed so we discussed
it with the authors and the proposed course of actions was: -01 is
posted to incorporate your comments and then we issue the WGLC. So
strictly speaking the next port after your comments was -01 (which was
*suppossed* to address your comments) and then WGLC.

>This is not the process I expect. ( I thought there were other comments at adoption but cannot see them now).  I did see Kathleen promising a further review; that would be helpful.

As I can see Kathleen confirmed that her comments had been addressed.

> And as I alluded to, four weeks ago was a quiet time, a time to progress this.  Now, cut-off and post cut-off, it is that time of madness in the IETF when everyone comes out of hibernation and posts revised I-D.  I track TEAS and they have just posted 484 - yes four hundred and eighty four - pages of revised I-Ds which will keep me quiet for much of August. Interesting as TLS is, it is behind them in the queue.

I'm sorry about adding more stuff onto your plate. Lesson learner,
we'll try to avoid issuing adoption/WGLC around IETF week.
On the other hand...I have a weird feeling that a lot of people: 1) do
not comment outside of adoption call//WGLC 2) are more active around
the IETF week.
So issuing the WGLC in the trough between IETF meetings caused an
undesirable outcome of people not paying enough attention.
But thanks for the comments, I'll take it into account - let's
consider it my learning curve..

BTW -02 has been posted so I hope your comments have been incorporated.

SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry