Re: [TLS] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-tls-ticketrequests-07: (with COMMENT)

[Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, Dec 13, 2020 at 10:24:01PM -0800, Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker wrote:
> Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-tls-ticketrequests-07: 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-ticketrequests/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Some places in this document use "reuse", others "re-use".  I'm not sure which
> one is right, but it should be consistent throughout.

Both are (or, rather, can be) correct, if you treat "reuse" is a noun and
"re-use" is a verb.

> In Section 3:
> 
>    A client starting a new connection SHOULD set new_session_count to
>    the desired number of session tickets and resumption_count to 0.
> 
> Since it's only SHOULD, I'm curious about why an implementer might decide to do
> something other than this.

IIRC there's not currently any other behavior that particularly makes
sense, but since we had some extreme contention about sending particular
combinations of values there was not much desire to attempt to nail this
case down.  (It also leaves some flexibility for potential future work,
though I'm not entirely sure what shape that would take.)

-Ben