Re: [TLS] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates-04

Sean Turner <> Tue, 27 February 2018 14:11 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69116126DC2 for <>; Tue, 27 Feb 2018 06:11:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
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, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id j8BPpUwopQ-z for <>; Tue, 27 Feb 2018 06:11:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::235]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E819712D88F for <>; Tue, 27 Feb 2018 06:11:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id m13so18528247qtg.13 for <>; Tue, 27 Feb 2018 06:11:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=P8EoEDAvxEQC9HyWfuLLd9QoJi+dC//ewrC7L0UQG3I=; b=YpzKYaSYN89bbww3vcluisYY7vE4vKHFEFdufM6PrPgeBzGhxY+/DSNXCVeEPyTJ/U Bq+pmX8UbK2GwpnF43ZzC7hdPc8kWv3aWg9hY+jZhICsYBrw3E+a/F/I2Zjfc3+0isff v4XKIm3KTzZkZIRzpn+dnz9I057g0Sc1jmzQM=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=P8EoEDAvxEQC9HyWfuLLd9QoJi+dC//ewrC7L0UQG3I=; b=krvmFTuPjWrAU6PWhHLAttswkPPrkhBIgTFmFBdMyPN4rgqnBjKcrQZECSlLpM4+6S EtCbHlj7HxkWPEkhnLiipVdWJZpw+3jwwFI9L7sBBW48IJwW1xgfY+wvB3EMY+qZGuWu UwZk3+5jnOlAFzMdn/0OBV+DZIoyhP2iyFTf1ck1fzJ6vEX81/W/hn/kuJ+Q3gkFVO5i AvyXmWKP5LzVuXj5EcC7Iboop/uUe+aoE/66N8W2kD9KqDWK3yrHMfVm/4bwbR2SiQ8f NtadWWxtl7zGPu1GfGY4SMk4ADfMtIm/i8q0nQOrXGn2ZuQj0UXdcpooYcWp8xabmX2W ElhQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: APf1xPDhCSqHQHqftXdvUqmXM4gn4SNWAiofPYUX08BhgTMFUJ0RFmm7 bILsJcoljo3wsYEOmq3IcNzj2w==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AG47ELt2VSIrJvqRdtqVgsNSb+KXURrYVUverCnaJedkattLXfrxDPHN209OoMcOBQ1i/UNr8J2AtQ==
X-Received: by with SMTP id e38mr23626052qtc.158.1519740691018; Tue, 27 Feb 2018 06:11:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id r51sm7008039qtr.93.2018. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 27 Feb 2018 06:11:30 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\))
From: Sean Turner <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 09:11:28 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: Stewart Bryant <>, "<>" <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates-04
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." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 14:11:35 -0000

> On Feb 20, 2018, at 14:50, Stewart Bryant <> wrote:
> Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
> Review result: Ready with Issues
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.
> For more information, please see the FAQ at
> <>.
> Document: draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates-05
> Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
> Review Date: 2018-02-20
> IETF LC End Date: 2018-03-01
> IESG Telechat date: 2018-03-08
> Summary: A well written document that is difficult to check and easy to make a
> mistake with. There are a tiny number of editorial matters. The matter of the
> semantics of Recommended = no may need to further thought and clarification.
> Major issues: None
> Minor issues:
> I think convention is to list the documents being updated in the Abstract, but
> cannot find any formal guidance.

You’re right that is the convention, but it’s not required.  draft-flanagan-7322bis is attempting to make including updates in the abstract a must, but it’s not been through any kind of LC yet.  There is a sentence there saying that a lot of RFCs are updated and to see the updates header so I think under the 7322 to balance concise and to not include references I’m thinking this is okay.

> ======
>  If an item is marked as not recommended it does not necessarily mean
> SB> Do you mean "marked as not recommended" or "not marked as recommended”.

There are two states for the Recommended column: YES and NO.  I can go either way on whether
marked as not recommended = NO
not marked as recommended = NO

WG - thoughts?

> =======
> SB>  I am worried about the semantics of Recommended = no.
> SB> Presumably there are three states: recommended, not recommended,
> SB> and silent/don't know/don't care/not yet. Which of these
> SB> states does Recommended = no represent?

There are two states and a draft that specifies a value in a registry that has a Recommended column needs to state which it is.  I’m not too concerned because we can change the column value later if it turns out a NO should have been a YES.

> Nits/editorial comments:
> Abstract
>   This document describes a number of changes to (D)TLS IANA registries
> SB> TLS is not a well known abbreviation and so needs expanding

Right well I should fix that ;)

I made the following tweak:




  Transport Layer Security and Datagram Transport Layer Security ((D)TLS)


> ========
>   This document instructs IANA to make changes to a number of (D)TLS-
> SB> TLS needs expanding

See above.