From nobody Fri Oct 29 14:14:54 2021 Return-Path: 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 9D4793A1758 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 14:14:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.097 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 qeueDeIMKFwi for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 14:14:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vk1-xa30.google.com (mail-vk1-xa30.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::a30]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 223883A1753 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 14:14:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vk1-xa30.google.com with SMTP id t127so5197991vke.13 for ; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 14:14:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=IE3DZbOFRhKTGrddzoMn8ji4jjiuxHs6dw5GH7j6wC8=; b=gropTGtcG5zVRbFgBLp9AvZNQtQczMoN1fNDM4SyJM7KrIfbelF2mkgNeJJow0Qdjn ERe2yhms9x7lbqpPgU6GZf/520uTCkMrRxXVNdDmyCZr17nA06vCJyeCraKrRXXqRQf3 WxLQYBHzLI7Dik512n43OdJm+cH5YjTD66V6NWwQFcMDllPoLnYh+NWdZmD38dwejwm7 paa+oSlGf9w6iKWtKcmbj793emJxoAKzM65/89PLoo0TshA1COgmnUGdrbmTuKtX8aBb jhwViCM5+zGLj7cESSCbtg1WScRdksSjzjhSGevdCQ+bXFhIAGsXLvXSXKKgELHI2KBC cM0g== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=IE3DZbOFRhKTGrddzoMn8ji4jjiuxHs6dw5GH7j6wC8=; b=Iv9NOGqHaXvnjujeIY9+/ilbe3zX48k8+8agTA7dFAcwj3CR3rvcKg9ZEjsZ1iLYZU JISu9dkjKKzN1cudkOT0GiGzFP6UrYxxe4lgoFZi08Y7OoEgu/7vS9ILyEBo9F4kZXNA iuBtl6Ic/YAozhFgnRe6tFdesmTytgH2EwmI5oFrjcwuEaBDQil3SKiHNTMf4r3xmyKd lm5D6/GtmXyYGDNu5dda7SGB6cpG458FPqYqlSaoq8bof+tClINR1PB6VPhRePg0V9iH cSrvo3W/bxa+8dGw3DwuZQ+PoRptpF2bSWZS0khE7pHmg4gtDMd8ojVuJLCf1CVHLsye R4Rw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530gY1HrP48SZX0FOPUkos5nq8ZfljQuZqOl6brZOtR1q1TmAYXZ cB6ogWMlICtB9nnAQyXXbTacO/x+Gd4Oqy4uzCk= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzxzYLabzi2g8E6hlth9eJgyGw92cwIpS+z/aNkDuFI98PUyIyBpV3Qwwd2Vz2W6vbeErlZJ05zKVpdfM0maKg= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6122:2217:: with SMTP id bb23mr14669189vkb.13.1635542084806; Fri, 29 Oct 2021 14:14:44 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <6DC9931F-7CEC-4DD3-87BC-EEA93A7B9646@akamai.com> <81AEBCC0-4704-4ED0-8A49-B3DC5842C005@akamai.com> In-Reply-To: From: Ira McDonald Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2021 17:14:33 -0400 Message-ID: To: Eric Rescorla , Ira McDonald Cc: "Salz, Rich" , Hannes Tschofenig , IETF TLS Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000fae9b805cf8450cd" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [TLS] TLS Flags and IANA registration policy X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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: Fri, 29 Oct 2021 21:14:53 -0000 --000000000000fae9b805cf8450cd Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Eric, Thanks for the background. I still sympathize with Hannes' point that "Recommended" means "IETF Consensus". I have to explain this too often in the insular automotive industry. But I certainly wouldn't write an RFC to change the title of a single column in an IANA registry. I've been one of the Designated Experts for the IANA Internet Printing Protocol (IPP) registry for 20 years and we rename IANA fields as needed by a direct request to our IANA folks (after consensus in the IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group IPP WG - successor to IETF IPP WG in the 1990s). Cheers, - Ira On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 3:18 PM Eric Rescorla wrote: > Previous discussion is on this issue: > https://github.com/tlswg/tls13-spec/issues/1214 > > On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 12:13 PM Salz, Rich wrote: > >> >> - I am actually not in favor of changing it to IETF Consensus. I >> think these have different meanings. >> >> >> >> To be clear, I wasn=E2=80=99t expressing an opinion on whether or not to= do this, >> I was just showing folks how to start the change process. >> > --000000000000fae9b805cf8450cd Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Eric,

Thanks for the back= ground.=C2=A0 I still sympathize with Hannes' point that
&quo= t;Recommended" means "IETF Consensus".=C2=A0 I have to expla= in this
too often in the insular automotive industry.

But I certainly wouldn't write an RFC to change the t= itle of a single
column in an IANA registry.=C2=A0 I've been = one of the Designated Experts
for the IANA Internet Printing Prot= ocol (IPP) registry for 20 years and
we rename IANA fields as nee= ded by a direct request to our IANA
folks (after consensus in the= IEEE-ISTO Printer Working Group IPP
WG - successor to IETF IPP W= G in the 1990s).

Cheers,
- Ira
=
<= div>
=

On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 3:18 PM Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
Previous discussion is on this i= ssue: https://github.com/tlswg/tls13-spec/issues/1214

On Fri, Oct 29,= 2021 at 12:13 PM Salz, Rich <rsalz@akamai.com> wrote:
  • I am actually not in favor of changing it to = IETF Consensus. I think these have different meanings.

    • =C2=A0

    To be clear, I wasn=E2=80=99t expressing an opinion = on whether or not to do this, I was just showing folks how to start the cha= nge process.

--000000000000fae9b805cf8450cd--