Re: [Unbearable] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-tokbind-negotiation-12: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

[Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]>]

Hi Andrei,

On Mon, May 7, 2018, at 8:06 PM, Andrei Popov wrote:
> Hi Alexey,
> 
> Thanks for reviewing the specs, I appreciate your comments.
> 
> > What is the significance of "major" and "minor" versions?
> There is no normative significance; the version value is split into two 
> parts for convenience of discussion only, so that we can talk about 
> versions such as 0.10, 0.13, 1.0, etc.

I am tempted to suggest that you should replace it with a single unsigned 16bit, as "major" doesn't mean anything

> > Any rules on what kind of changed would require increment of the "major" version.
> > Any restrictions on what must remain the same when the "major" (or "minor") version gets incremented?
> We have no such rules; it is common to increment the "major" protocol 
> version when "significant" changes happen, but this is up to future 
> protocol specs to define.

I urge the WG to think about extensibility now, as opposed to deciding later. Both TLS and HTTP specifications put much more thoughts into versionning.

If you don't need generic extensibility (you already have ability to support different private key types), then maybe you don't need the version field at all. You can just get a new TLS extension number if you need some incompatible changes. (Or to ask it in another way: do you just have the version number field to work around strict TLS extension code point allocation rules?)

> > Any requirements on backward compatibility when only the "minor" version is incremented?
> There is no backward compatibility between different Token Binding 
> protocol versions, regardless of which component of TB_ProtocolVersion 
> changes.
> 
> > Wouldn't be better to point to the IANA registry established by [I-D.ietf-tokbind-protocol]?
> Indeed, it may be better to say something like "[I-D.ietf-tokbind-
> protocol] establishes an IANA registry for Token Binding key parameters" 
> or something to this effect.
> I'll try to wordsmith this.

Yes, this sounds good.

Best Regards,
Alexey

> Cheers,
> 
> Andrei
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alexey Melnikov <[e-mail]> 
> Sent: Sunday, May 6, 2018 8:31 AM
> To: The IESG <[e-mail]>
> Cc: [e-mail]; John Bradley 
> <[e-mail]>; [e-mail]; [e-mail]; 
> [e-mail]
> Subject: Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-tokbind-negotiation-12: 
> (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
> 
> Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-tokbind-negotiation-12: Discuss
> 
> 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%7C59e09351f0fe4b2fb9ac08d5b366524f%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C1%7C636612174409112174&sdata=LDU%2F%2FEr7lCYt0gm0yExDVINW1DGJh5S5cJJRv%2FRULQY%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%7C59e09351f0fe4b2fb9ac08d5b366524f%7C72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47%7C1%7C1%7C636612174409112174&sdata=ka1kQLpRehbQmXHtxHj73cqfGsRw1Axvk%2BS%2BjkbOatQ%3D&reserved=0
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I will be switching to "Yes" once one issue mentioned below is discussed:
> 
> I would like to have a quick discussion about your versionning model:
> 
>    struct {
>        uint8 major;
>        uint8 minor;
>    } TB_ProtocolVersion;
> 
> What is the significance of "major" and "minor" versions?
> Any rules on what kind of changed would require increment of the "major"
> version. Any restrictions on what must remain the same when the 
> "major" (or
> "minor") version gets incremented? Any requirements on backward 
> compatibility when only the "minor" version is incremented?
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> In Section 2:
> 
>    "key_parameters_list" contains the list of identifiers of the Token
>    Binding key parameters supported by the client, in descending order
>    of preference.  [I-D.ietf-tokbind-protocol] defines an initial set of
>    identifiers for Token Binding key parameters.
> 
> Wouldn't be better to point to the IANA registry established by [I-
> D.ietf-tokbind-protocol]?
> My concern is that you might be misleading implementors into not looking 
> there.
> 
>