[TLS] Adam Roach's No Objection on draft-ietf-tls-ecdhe-psk-aead-04: (with COMMENT)

[Adam Roach <[e-mail]>]

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tls-ecdhe-psk-aead-04: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)


Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-ecdhe-psk-aead/



----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree with EKR's discuss -- specifying semantics for these ciphersuites
with TLS 1.0 and 1.1 is a material change, and the proposed mechanism (in
which servers are encouraged to infer 1.2 support even in the absence of
explicit indication) is a bit baffling.

Given the scope this document covers, I recommend adding "1.2" to the
title of the document. (e.g.: "ECDHE_PSK with AES-GCM and AES-CCM Cipher
Suites for Transport Layer Security Version 1.2 (TLS 1.2)")