Re: [TLS] housekeeping: uplift RFC 5289 to Proposed Standard

[Sean Turner <[e-mail]>]

Seeing no objections I’ll get this process underway.

spt

> On Nov 15, 2016, at 20:10, Sean Turner <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Note that Russ pointed out during the meeting that even though we can use this process a new RFC # will be minted at the end of the process.
> 
> spt
> 
>> On Nov 14, 2016, at 10:36, Sean Turner <[e-mail]> wrote:
>> 
>> This email addresses the "Uplifting” bullet on slide 6 of the chair slides (https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/97/slides/slides-97-tls-tls-wg-chair-slides-00.pdf); this is entirely procedural (i.e., there’s really no technical ).
>> 
>> The cipher suite registry's new "WG recommended” column's “Y" values are being populated with cipher suites that are on standards track.  The notable exceptions are the EC-based AES-GCM ciphers defined in RFC 5289, which is an informational RFC.  This point is buried in an earlier version of draft-ietf-tls-tls13 and now in the soon to be draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates (was draft-sandj-tls-iana-registry-updates); the complete list of the pet-TLS 1.3 suites can be found here: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sandj-tls-iana-registry-updates-01#section-6.
>> 
>> We can uplift RFC 5289 to PS from Informational with what essentially amounts to an IETF LC; we don't need a new draft (there's no errata).  We want to know if there are any objections to starting this process please post a message to the list by November 21st if you object (and why).
>> 
>> Please note the following:
>> 
>> -  This "action" is similar to what we're doing with 4492bis (it too is being moved to standards track) it's just that we can use this other process.
>> 
>> - RFC 7525, which was published through the UTA WG and is a BCP btw, already 2119-RECOMMENDs the ciphers.
>> 
>> - RFC 7540 (aka HTTP/2) MUSTs one of the RFC 5289 cipher suites.
>> 
>> spt
>