Re: [TLS] Consensus Call on draft-ietf-tls-dnssec-chain-extension

Benjamin Kaduk <bkaduk@akamai.com> Thu, 12 April 2018 17:54 UTC

Return-Path: <bkaduk@akamai.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 B5A57126DED for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 10:54:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.71
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.71 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_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=akamai.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 UeEtqom36NmO for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 10:54:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com (mx0a-00190b01.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9001:583::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B85901276AF for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 10:54:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0050093.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0050093.ppops.net-00190b01. (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w3CHrFtG006977; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 18:54:44 +0100
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=date : from : to : cc : subject : message-id : references : mime-version : content-type : in-reply-to; s=jan2016.eng; bh=j7zQ+FjhyopzPk24EUy6+VmtdcrakEVIPtUIayliDi0=; b=YdwVpBtlRG0BYUWIhyKSvwv7jT3/+Vaxs8Kqh+8f7Vgc6zasoRHkTQYMXZ0J85bJpFPg kbSbS37MiHuGkvLIqn18bYxLuXD+T7I4JSE+an3L3fZQn61i35JwkaREeiGU8Epc72fj b/0LXp8Hnhymlnldq+d0m+byS7NBuZY01yFKKXGSSSTCYitdYQsUs32he2HklwtpiOeC iIzvGeCLXBCwhMeYa07d+1FgIH4M0JgvAYm2aXfze1o+VnphqIXiqwT8OOSyiFbua32t wTy8rQKpykCPu+reCehcsp2yuaJQ8BBEMccWmnn9WR+WM93X1E84r9ySodwOI3vbjDjx fA==
Received: from prod-mail-ppoint4 ([96.6.114.87]) by m0050093.ppops.net-00190b01. with ESMTP id 2ha52j99c9-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 12 Apr 2018 18:54:44 +0100
Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint4.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint4.akamai.com (8.16.0.21/8.16.0.21) with SMTP id w3CHp4pT012702; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 13:54:43 -0400
Received: from prod-mail-relay14.akamai.com ([172.27.17.39]) by prod-mail-ppoint4.akamai.com with ESMTP id 2h6savvn1f-1; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 13:54:42 -0400
Received: from bos-lpczi.kendall.corp.akamai.com (bos-lpczi.kendall.corp.akamai.com [172.19.17.86]) by prod-mail-relay14.akamai.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEBA582F7D; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 17:54:42 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from bkaduk by bos-lpczi.kendall.corp.akamai.com with local (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from <bkaduk@akamai.com>) id 1f6gQk-0000Ae-08; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 12:54:42 -0500
Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2018 12:54:41 -0500
From: Benjamin Kaduk <bkaduk@akamai.com>
To: Kathleen Moriarty <kathleen.moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>
Cc: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>, "<tls@ietf.org>" <tls@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20180412175441.GD20782@akamai.com>
References: <CAOgPGoAhzEtxpW5mzmkf2kv3AcugNy0dAzhvpaqrTSuMSqWqfw@mail.gmail.com> <CAHPuVdXfVQ5ZYL+dTvFeTfOaz2NNPrqxvnWuqJkxu0aaKDF_Sg@mail.gmail.com> <20180410235321.GR25259@localhost> <20180411173348.GP17433@akamai.com> <alpine.LRH.2.21.1804120438460.24369@bofh.nohats.ca> <CAL02cgSuTOaT_NwnpXaa8DPhNJhzqZwepRL+J29BzcBfCTDtHw@mail.gmail.com> <CAHbuEH78KNyk8fnHThRkCERKPjZzYppi1uhkDx6kL_t448q0_g@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHbuEH78KNyk8fnHThRkCERKPjZzYppi1uhkDx6kL_t448q0_g@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2018-04-12_10:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1711220000 definitions=main-1804120175
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2018-04-12_10:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1711220000 definitions=main-1804120175
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/twCd3gkLUABoGTKG2miaN0GZUd8>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Consensus Call on draft-ietf-tls-dnssec-chain-extension
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: Thu, 12 Apr 2018 17:54:48 -0000

On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 09:50:20AM -0400, Kathleen Moriarty wrote:
> There's a few steps Paul is missing in his summary of the process.
> 
> On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 8:58 AM, Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Apr 12, 2018 at 4:40 AM, Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, 11 Apr 2018, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> >>
> >>> I don't really agree with that characterization.  To state my
> >>> understanding,
> >>> as responsible AD, of the status of this document: this document is in
> >>> the
> >>> RFC Editor's queue being processed.
> >>
> >>
> >> That was a process mistake.
> >>
> >> 1) ekr filed a DISCUSS
> >> 2) other people raised issues in response
> >> 3) ekr's DISCUSS was resolved but not the other people's concern
> 
> The concerns were discussed at the meeting in London.  The chairs
> reviewed 3 separate issues.  The first was agreed upon that a simple
> wording change that was not significant to hold up for approval was
> made.  No change was needed with one of the other issues.  With the
> third, the room was in full agreement that this should be done in a
> separate draft.  I went to the mic and summarized this and asked for
> agreement that it was ok to approve the document as a result and there
> was no opposition, just agreement.

It's also worth noting that Ekr explicitly disavowed the other concerns
as outside the range of his DISCUSS
(https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg25536.html), and
the entire IESG had plenty of opportunities to indicate support for
these other concerns as being DISCUSS-worthy, but none did so.

> It was right of the chairs to put this back out to the list for
> confirmation as they have the ability to pull a document back if they
> decide that is the right course of action.
> 
> The AD can also override the chairs if they decide it should go
> forward and the AD does not agree (although I don't see that in his
> messages).

I'm waiting to see if anything else comes out of this thread.
In particular, I am hoping that some authors/proponents of leaving the
document in the RFC Editor queue would speak to the question of the
target scope, given the arguments that have been presented regarding
the risk/reward tradeoff of the current narrow scope.

-Ben