IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Trans] Summary of DISCUSS items for draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis

Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org> Wed, 03 June 2020 18:10 UTC

Return-Path: <rdd@cert.org>
X-Original-To: trans@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: trans@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 040B63A0CD9 for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 11:10:47 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, 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 (1024-bit key) header.d=cert.org
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 M8vav_jScFaF for <trans@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 11:10:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from veto.sei.cmu.edu (veto.sei.cmu.edu [147.72.252.17]) (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 7C4963A0CBB for <trans@ietf.org>; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 11:10:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from delp.sei.cmu.edu (delp.sei.cmu.edu [10.64.21.31]) by veto.sei.cmu.edu (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 053IAhwo025668; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 14:10:43 -0400
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 veto.sei.cmu.edu 053IAhwo025668
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cert.org; s=yc2bmwvrj62m; t=1591207843; bh=R91Wm6hjBemNOdqNFIaw8fg5doamm/Y+rBGxOb9AZ9k=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=b3r0iUHoZJCVX2kwcWYyfc188KpeeqMTZa+3lPZI8edLSfOCFACF91apo5cp0Lmia J89ATf9bPf7ah/ytZcTO4cZa0Fxw1gfyrYJQ3KBRarDA+JkeFxiuRzDXEvqetJOZR3 m5LhOVZmi+EI+LDqlBjnno9KNcDVBv9EI06G+hmQ=
Received: from CASSINA.ad.sei.cmu.edu (cassina.ad.sei.cmu.edu [10.64.28.249]) by delp.sei.cmu.edu (8.14.7/8.14.7) with ESMTP id 053IAhQU046221; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 14:10:43 -0400
Received: from MURIEL.ad.sei.cmu.edu (147.72.252.47) by CASSINA.ad.sei.cmu.edu (10.64.28.249) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.487.0; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 14:10:43 -0400
Received: from MORRIS.ad.sei.cmu.edu (147.72.252.46) by MURIEL.ad.sei.cmu.edu (147.72.252.47) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256) id 15.1.1979.3; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 14:10:42 -0400
Received: from MORRIS.ad.sei.cmu.edu ([fe80::555b:9498:552e:d1bb]) by MORRIS.ad.sei.cmu.edu ([fe80::555b:9498:552e:d1bb%13]) with mapi id 15.01.1979.003; Wed, 3 Jun 2020 14:10:42 -0400
From: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
To: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>, "trans@ietf.org" <trans@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [Trans] Summary of DISCUSS items for draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis
Thread-Index: AQHWOcSINEoBTpOxqkWyZwlkW4aJCajHJvRQ
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2020 18:10:42 +0000
Message-ID: <847f0ed9ec8c4dbe9233b386b1af3ef3@cert.org>
References: <0326AF38-C3C7-43D8-824F-31D0E9879564@akamai.com>
In-Reply-To: <0326AF38-C3C7-43D8-824F-31D0E9879564@akamai.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.64.202.162]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/trans/Y86Ld2M2eybK-YfpIkyX8lrrqws>
Subject: Re: [Trans] Summary of DISCUSS items for draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis
X-BeenThere: trans@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Public Notary Transparency working group discussion list <trans.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/trans>, <mailto:trans-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/trans/>
List-Post: <mailto:trans@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:trans-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/trans>, <mailto:trans-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2020 18:10:47 -0000

Hi Rich!

I am sympathetic to how long this has taken and share responsibility in that.  More inline ...

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Salz, Rich <rsalz@akamai.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 3, 2020 12:32 PM
> To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>; trans@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Trans] Summary of DISCUSS items for draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis
> 
>     >    o  An Online Certificate Status Protocol (OCSP) [RFC6960] response
>     >       extension (see Section 7.1.1), where the OCSP response is provided
>     >       in the "CertificateStatus" message, provided that the TLS client
>     >       included the "status_request" extension in the (extended)
>     >       "ClientHello" (Section 8 of [RFC6066]).  [...]
>     >
>     > This is not quite a TLS 1.3-compliant formulation -- TLS 1.3 does not use the
>     > "CertificateStatus message", but rather uses the encoding of that structure
> in a
>     > status_request extension in the CertificateEntry.
>     > draft-ietf-trans-rfc6962-bis
> 
>     I haven't seen discussion of Ben's DISCUSS feedback
> 
> Oh come on now.
> 
> This draft has sat with no action for a very long time, and now someone is
> supposed to rouse the authors, and the working group, to address a new RFC
> that didn't exist (drafts did, yes).  

I'm happy to process with this document in whatever way the working group wants.  It is the one thing keeping the group open.  

> Compare the timelines of the two documents.

Do you mean the telechat date of this document vs. RFC8466?  I'm not following the thinking as the final publication of TLS 1.3 predates the original telechat review of this document by a number of months.  Should this have been found earlier, perhaps.

** Ben's DISCUSS = 03/13/2019 for the 03/14/2019 telechat
** RFC8466 = 08/2018

> Close the group, and let the draft lie or publish the damn thing.  What's going
> on now is just cruel.

We can't publish it without clearing the final two discusses.

I appreciate the authors clearing Alissa, Mirja and Adam DISCUSS points in with -32, -33 and -34.

Roman

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email