Re: [TLS] question for the WG about draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates

Daniel Migault <daniel.migault@ericsson.com> Wed, 22 November 2017 19:08 UTC

Return-Path: <mglt.ietf@gmail.com>
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 079A0129B5C for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Nov 2017 11:08:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.398
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.398 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.199, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 BLQHYmdrps-C for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Nov 2017 11:08:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf0-x233.google.com (mail-lf0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c07::233]) (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 8F6531298A1 for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Nov 2017 11:08:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf0-x233.google.com with SMTP id i14so19444984lfc.1 for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Nov 2017 11:08:42 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=zXGJtj4rogm9POJw670o+osbR4r/fBKSwHoA+TULBZk=; b=VsP0I2z7QZcZ56k9fWY7nIP11fq0J9ZxZuqwlgD2ivplz1cNUaYhRavh24L8u4uCVR QaaO4zVWZKUdXSYVpKWN0KCgWwGXU6VSQX9KioZod6Ab/k4J+WlGqB+TCMYPPpW/g2+c gme2J4KKf+ntKdeDwtDO4cfRDlVPjuVSOARGbPZyyUUxjx9+dfMWuugxpnngO0f4E/OT zKn41ZMP3lZ7/vbBxGNMZfAt6jZ5ueldinTwf3by9iORAtH8kvKwpQiSSk6w6l6xKFnH Lg0W8zEZ9V6DJgdfjpQ2FXYsKwT2CN6jWKK3WTfsCj4OxyEIp+DhTCv5xl8d1iMkkmPD VPbw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=zXGJtj4rogm9POJw670o+osbR4r/fBKSwHoA+TULBZk=; b=ROR5IFBbToNXGLAZFrrPq6jXrw8YvrBkdLbklM4CbYDGSgyUaroRKUnOAyL2zQ1rqw 7C0j+2lSOsaGh9BUaQ7LOncU77uQJEkFz7zrJFoDAgGlqMPRMqS9z9UhImZQTZYvXVRp xymBLsK5oPlf5yac7M7OBjMe4VM3myh6bqASk4jkDXFFtHhAUveGUc3tVCrVKKcedSMm AO+OS59QfMwsPsXmdjnag/RxYRNFoxCa95ntvIrOs77huyGoNNr3l2z3NHwsV2e/4Vpq zKzerLxzkVwRzMMaU70TqM/HY6GQk7PBJsBY+64V6qs6WHDtbMyeCPmf2Lb04a1KMM6O 1gyA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX7fWtrDrgpc2FW/ztTZlkckdNx1dUyoXFSbOAfMrX6Z3nFwTO8x zQH8hxLNHzdem5xkHTNw03JZ9MO08zIXW8fwsDM=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMZ09i76IwwWfUO6nrKh9X3Y+ettgHwsfB90btQJfN8Hu+0gizI4nEAQY/t4v6qrfnPZH1QkueeT1TWecBWBMaU=
X-Received: by 10.46.34.134 with SMTP id i128mr1168495lji.11.1511377720738; Wed, 22 Nov 2017 11:08:40 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: mglt.ietf@gmail.com
Received: by 10.46.70.2 with HTTP; Wed, 22 Nov 2017 11:08:39 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <F64E2431-4201-44FA-9FF2-5856891D4429@sn3rd.com>
References: <0b536834-e49b-4c07-fc19-4d44c7e0ad99@cs.tcd.ie> <CABkgnnVGVJN4PDQnDC5LbOnvsnv+DPecE4RQrvTvyVoK8aQDhw@mail.gmail.com> <16bf6215-f8dd-5d9c-22c3-a8814da13693@cs.tcd.ie> <F64E2431-4201-44FA-9FF2-5856891D4429@sn3rd.com>
From: Daniel Migault <daniel.migault@ericsson.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 14:08:39 -0500
X-Google-Sender-Auth: XzXYs2oOxiiHhGlccr2mP450AkY
Message-ID: <CADZyTkkCWY5Ft9uwD7CWCzfRwLsz-voxVtBqX37=trFT6fdPPQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com>
Cc: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>, "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="f4030439dfa42a88c3055e970ca1"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/tnE6imaX5NMKRyV1KbRM41DElaU>
Subject: Re: [TLS] question for the WG about draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
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." <tls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tls/>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2017 19:08:45 -0000

IESG approval seems also fine to me. Hopefully ciphers may not be used at
the time they are deprecated.

Yours,
Daniel

On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 12:13 PM, Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com>; wrote:

> Funny I never thought about going down, but I guess we should ;) I think
> the premise we want here is hard to get a Yes (whether new or upgrade) and
> somewhat easier than that to go down but it can’t be done in the dark so 4
> would work. This kind of works out because people are motivated to get
> ciphers specified, but very much less so to de-specify them.
>
> spt
> > On Nov 21, 2017, at 18:54, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>;
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On 21/11/17 23:39, Martin Thomson wrote:
> >> IESG action seems appropriate for both.
> >
> > I'm fairly sure the WG discussed the No->Yes (or new Yes)
> > before and wanted standards action for that. I'd guess
> > that changing that might take some discussion. (FWIW, I'd
> > not support that change myself but maybe others would.)
> >
> > If the No->Yes stuff doesn't change I'll take you as
> > arguing for a (4) below but correct me if that's wrong.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > S.
> >
> >> If we could include guidance
> >> around this (values with Yes should only include those for which the
> >> community currently has consensus are worth having available at the
> >> current time), tat would be awesom>
> >> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 7:37 AM, Stephen Farrell
> >> <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>; wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hiya,
> >>>
> >>> I just posted a draft shepherd write-up for this [1]. (The
> >>> write-up text was mostly written by Sean as it happens - for
> >>> which he has my thanks as it's boring as hell to do that:-)
> >>>
> >>> There are nits but only one substantive question that I don't
> >>> recall the WG discussing before (but maybe I'm forgetting).
> >>>
> >>> What is needed to change from Recommended == Yes down to
> >>> Recommended == No? Does that need a standards action (e.g.
> >>> with an RFC) or just IETF review or even maybe just IESG
> >>> action?
> >>>
> >>> In the current draft write-up I've put in the first as a
> >>> placeholder, as that's symmetric with the No->Yes change but
> >>> I think IESG action is probably ok if the WG wanted that as
> >>> the IESG probably won't go crazy and will likely do as the
> >>> WG want in such cases. If the WG do want to write a specific
> >>> foo-no-longer-recommended RFC it can do that in all cases,
> >>> and of course Yes->No transitions could be documented in an
> >>> RFC that documents a "replacement" Yes entry.
> >>>
> >>> So, unless this was already discussed....answers on a postcard
> >>> please - which'd we like:
> >>>
> >>> (1) say nothing (as in -02 draft)
> >>> (2) say standards action is required for a Yes->No transition
> >>> (3) say IETF review (i.e. an IETF last call) is required for a
> >>>    Yes->No transition
> >>> (4) say IESG action is required for a Yes->No transition
> >>> (5) something else
> >>>
> >>> And as a reminder the Recommended column is not about crypto
> >>> quality but is about things for which we have consensus that
> >>> they ought be widely implemented and available at the current
> >>> point in time. Those are related things but Recommended == No
> >>> does not imply crap-crypto even if crap-crypto will hopefully
> >>> imply Recommended == No.
> >>>
> >>> If nobody says anything I'll chat with Kathleen, Sean and Joe
> >>> and we'll pick a thing and that'll doubtless be quibbled about
> >>> during directorate reviews and IESG processing as these things
> >>> always are;-)
> >>>
> >>> But since I'd hope implementers will care about keeping up to
> >>> date with the set of Recommended == Yes things, I do hope that
> >>> folks are willing to express a preference here.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>> S.
> >>>
> >>> [1]
> >>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates/
> shepherdwriteup/
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> TLS mailing list
> >>> TLS@ietf.org
> >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
> >>>
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > TLS mailing list
> > TLS@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> TLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>