Re: [TLS] Consensus Call on draft-ietf-tls-dnssec-chain-extension

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Fri, 13 April 2018 17:02 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.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 7F6C7124234 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Apr 2018 10:02:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 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_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cryptonector.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 jhsekC4HomLG for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 Apr 2018 10:02:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a110.g.dreamhost.com (sub4.mail.dreamhost.com [69.163.253.135]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 189771241F3 for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Apr 2018 10:02:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a110.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a110.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78C1A2004CA0F; Fri, 13 Apr 2018 10:02:17 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h=date :from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to; s=cryptonector.com; bh=fhgtG3kKDmTXCQ BcG9Wk9GPa7Wg=; b=SGFmos2/ArtDc5jgpnAaYeMz1TMAlcIP99Z+W+FaLuFwan sQhdJXbpLmI3Bn4LjJuXTsWYRhZjg6bEJ6dCIPdizeeSTKhTY3mQFgQfdPUCJ6P5 Leay+ytTLt2d747odlb8T+WEAXtBgRosau9M10j1ciZFdp5ks/+KDm1w8PX5g=
Received: from localhost (unknown [8.2.105.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a110.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id CF1892004CA0E; Fri, 13 Apr 2018 10:02:16 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2018 12:01:14 -0500
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
Cc: Benjamin Kaduk <bkaduk@akamai.com>, "<tls@ietf.org>" <tls@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20180413170112.GV25259@localhost>
References: <CAOgPGoAhzEtxpW5mzmkf2kv3AcugNy0dAzhvpaqrTSuMSqWqfw@mail.gmail.com> <CAHPuVdXfVQ5ZYL+dTvFeTfOaz2NNPrqxvnWuqJkxu0aaKDF_Sg@mail.gmail.com> <20180410235321.GR25259@localhost> <20180411173348.GP17433@akamai.com> <alpine.LRH.2.21.1804120438460.24369@bofh.nohats.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1804120438460.24369@bofh.nohats.ca>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/X9oWJrBtRmN2DWCB3xYzYoRkk_s>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Consensus Call on draft-ietf-tls-dnssec-chain-extension
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: Fri, 13 Apr 2018 17:02:19 -0000

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 04:40:25AM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> 
> >I don't really agree with that characterization.  To state my understanding,
> >as responsible AD, of the status of this document: this document is in the
> >RFC Editor's queue being processed.
> 
> That was a process mistake.
> 
> 1) ekr filed a DISCUSS
> 2) other people raised issues in response
> 3) ekr's DISCUSS was resolved but not the other people's concern
> 4) document was placed in RFC Editor queue despite this
> 5) TLS consensus call done on the list
> 6) here we are....
> 
> I think it is not good to use this process as a way of approving things.
> A process mistake was made.

Yes, though this consensus call cures that (and moots that grounds for
appeal).

However, since it's become clear that the I-D undeniably has a problem
because it describes pinning behavior and lacks sufficient functionality
for that -- we really must now make a change.

IMO, the question is no longer whether to make changes, but which
changes to make.

Nico
--