Re: [TLS] Fwd: Last Call: <draft-ietf-kitten-tls-channel-bindings-for-tls13-09.txt> (Channel Bindings for TLS 1.3) to Proposed Standard

[Sam Whited <[e-mail]>]

This is just a registration with IANA more than anything else; this
required almost no work compared to the many people and many years spent
on TLS. I don't believe marking this as an update implies any flaw in
TLS, or any presumption that this is somehow its equal in terms of
effort. This isn't a competition, it's just logically part of the same
ecosystem.

If we start thinking about one document referencing or updating another
as somehow being presumptuous or implying that we're trying to retcon
the other authors work I don't see the culture of the IETF ever becoming
a very inviting one. Similarly, if we decide that every document that
updates another document has to be its equal in terms of effort, no
documents will ever get updates until they are ready to be entirely
replaced. Lots of documents receive small updates, this is no different.

Would it make a difference if I added a section thanking the TLS authors
for their work and for including bits like EKM that make keying material
possible? I'd be happy to include such a section if it would make people
feel better about it.


—Sam

On Fri, Oct 1, 2021, at 23:32, Rob Sayre wrote:
> Makes sense a goal—I think the objection is more that updating 8446 on
> paper here is presumptuous, since that document took orders of
> magnitude more work.
>
> That should not detract from the work in this new draft, but hopefully
> my message at least makes the disagreement more clear.