Re: [Unbearable] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-tokbind-negotiation-12: (with COMMENT)

[Andrei Popov <[e-mail]>]

Hi Ben,

Thanks for the review; some answers below.
> Additionally, do I understand the version negotiation to require the client to support all previous version from the one it initially advertises?
No, the draft says specifically:
" There is no requirement for the client to support any Token
   Binding versions other than the one advertised in the client's
   "token_binding" extension."

> §1.1: Please consider using the 8174 boilerplate across the cluster. While I did not find lower case keywords in this draft, I did in the other two and it would be best to be consistent across all three.
Will make this change in the next revision.

> §2: "[I-D.ietf-tokbind-protocol] describes version {1, 0} of the protocol.":
> While one might infer that version to be {1,0} give the name "Token Binding 1.0", I never saw it explicitly mentioned.
Sorry, I did not understand the concern. Can you elaborate?

Thanks,

Andrei

-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Campbell <[e-mail]> 
Sent: Wednesday, May 9, 2018 1:06 PM
To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
Cc: [e-mail]; John Bradley <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; [e-mail]
Subject: Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-tokbind-negotiation-12: (with COMMENT)

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tokbind-negotiation-12: Yes

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://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ietf.org%2Fiesg%2Fstatement%2Fdiscuss-criteria.html&data=02%7C01%7CAndrei.Popov%40microsoft.com%7C3a1591db5ceb4c9f9e3508d5b5e842b3%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636614931539696277&sdata=tz5MtEsJwqlG7QHQWgLVy6HMgX1xyLTqzmnFA7U9Gmc%3D&reserved=0
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.


The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdatatracker.ietf.org%2Fdoc%2Fdraft-ietf-tokbind-negotiation%2F&data=02%7C01%7CAndrei.Popov%40microsoft.com%7C3a1591db5ceb4c9f9e3508d5b5e842b3%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C0%7C636614931539696277&sdata=JMexEpyWjrBwY5V2PvFVHCqaXtPlw7PaBRJK4Qk%2F5lc%3D&reserved=0



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

Thanks for this document. I am balloting "yes", but have a few comments:

- I support Alexey's DISCUSS. Additionally, do I understand the version negotiation to require the client to support all previous version from the one it initially advertises? If so, how would you deprecate a version at some time in the future?

- I shared some of the confusion about this being limited to TLS 1.2 and earlier. In particular, there is repeating language that to the effect of "For TLS 1.2 and earlier...", which seems strange for a draft that only supports 1.2 in the first place.

§1.1: Please consider using the 8174 boilerplate across the cluster. While I did not find lower case keywords in this draft, I did in the other two and it would be best to be consistent across all three.

§2: "[I-D.ietf-tokbind-protocol] describes version {1, 0} of the protocol.":
While one might infer that version to be {1,0} give the name "Token Binding 1.0", I never saw it explicitly mentioned.

Editorial Comments:

§2: "Please note that the server MAY select any lower protocol version, see Section 3": comma splice