Re: [TLS] WGLC for draft-ietf-tls-oob-pubkey-03.txt

Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org> Fri, 04 May 2012 18:01 UTC

Return-Path: <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
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 B2F1221F859A for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 May 2012 11:01:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.549
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SHpWQz3Dt-g9 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 May 2012 11:01:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hoffman.proper.com (IPv6.Hoffman.Proper.COM [IPv6:2605:8e00:100:41::81]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2F42921F8566 for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 May 2012 11:01:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.20.30.102] (50-0-66-4.dsl.dynamic.fusionbroadband.com [50.0.66.4]) (authenticated bits=0) by hoffman.proper.com (8.14.5/8.14.3) with ESMTP id q44I127V038095 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=NO); Fri, 4 May 2012 11:01:03 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from paul.hoffman@vpnc.org)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1257)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LFD.2.02.1204261354440.6626@bofh.nohats.ca>
Date: Fri, 4 May 2012 11:01:02 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <929471CE-9D7F-4497-8933-B64A56D0E20A@vpnc.org>
References: <A11FC42E-1708-4D82-8163-B14013E4B4BA@cisco.com> <87pqauq4v6.fsf@latte.josefsson.org> <alpine.LFD.2.02.1204261354440.6626@bofh.nohats.ca>
To: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1257)
Cc: Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org>, tls@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [TLS] WGLC for draft-ietf-tls-oob-pubkey-03.txt
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 04 May 2012 18:01:05 -0000

On Apr 26, 2012, at 10:57 AM, Paul Wouters wrote:

> On Thu, 26 Apr 2012, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> 
>> Major concerns:
>> 
>> 1) Section 3.1 and 3.2 more or less duplicate section 3.1 and 3.2 of RFC
>> 6091.  Wouldn't it be better to describe the RawPublicKey
>> CertificateType alone, rather than duplicating the entire
>> CertificateType extension?
> 
> I think you are right. This was originally done because it started as
> a new TLS extension, and then also covered what has now been moved to
> cached-objects.

However, there is a good reason to leave the text as-is: this draft is meant to be on standards track and RFC 6091 is an Informational RFC. In order to make this document standards track, it probably needs to define the format again.

Alternately, the WG could simultaneously try to get RFC 6091 made standards track and eliminate the duplication. I don't know if anyone cares enough about OpenPGP certificates to do so; I certainly don't, given that the OpenPGP WG never bothered to do specify enrollment procedures for them.

--Paul Hoffman