Re: [TLS] Barry Leiba's Discuss on draft-ietf-tls-session-hash-05: (with DISCUSS)

Hiya,

First, I don't think there's much energy for this issue but we
should get it sorted and move on.

So, how about if we add that this updates 5246 and leave it at that?

The meaning there is that anyone who writes a new implementation
of 5246 really ought also do this too.

I don't think there's any possible harm to adding that and doing
so achieves whatever possible good effect there might be from the
addition of any "Updates" relationship.

If I hear nothing, I'll add an RFC editor note to that effect in
a few days and hopefully that'll be sufficient for Barry to clear
his discuss. (Barry, if not, please say what would work.)

Cheers,
S.

On 14/05/15 09:58, Karthikeyan Bhargavan wrote:
> The session-hash draft has roughly the same impact as RFC5746, which says:
> "Updates: 5246, 4366, 4347, 4346, 2246"
> 
> We would be happy to add this list or a subset.
> 
> Other RFCs affected by the current proposal are: rfc5929, rfc5705, rfc5746.
> 
> Should we note these in any way, other than as Informative References?
> 
> Best,
> Karthik
> 
> 
> On 14 May 2015, at 10:52, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:
> 
>>
>> Folks - I note this didn't get an answer. I don't recall that the WG
>> considered it, and I'm sure if it had the conclusion could have gone
>> either way (and a random choice would have been fine too:-) but can
>> you confirm or correct me on that please? If you can do it before the
>> telechat today (by ~1400 UTC) that'd be great.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> S.
>>
>> On 09/05/15 23:52, Barry Leiba wrote:
>>> Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
>>> draft-ietf-tls-session-hash-05: Discuss
>>>
>>> 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-session-hash/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> DISCUSS:
>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> This is a DISCUSS purely because I want to discuss it; whatever the
>>> result is, I will be clearing the DISCUSS, and not delaying the document
>>> on this point:  The last paragraph of Section 4 makes me wonder whether
>>> this should "update" 5246.  Basically, while this is an extension (which
>>> wouldn't normally use "updates"), it's one that you're proposing as
>>> standard behavior, and not really as an extension.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> TLS mailing list
>>> TLS@ietf.org
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>>>
> 