IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Uta] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-uta-tls-bcp-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com> Tue, 17 February 2015 21:11 UTC

Return-Path: <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>
X-Original-To: uta@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: uta@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0AF091A90BF; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 13:11:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.011
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 Dkl6SfArLJNm; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 13:11:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sabertooth01.qualcomm.com (sabertooth01.qualcomm.com [65.197.215.72]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E9911A90BC; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 13:11:28 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple; d=qti.qualcomm.com; i=@qti.qualcomm.com; q=dns/txt; s=qcdkim; t=1424207488; x=1455743488; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=2puUUIj2Lr1yRki3RGWTC8kk+8dlsQ0vCywNtGEPCgY=; b=qsMD/XUSz4iUHlo6GxK9SM6zLvVtcbsvmzqo9zcMcjf4dToXCWghi85O B45XGW/STKwhfhpkvqpBIh0PuPuSSndgkAoMXFj4L3ldRRjcAMK0OwOdd jsooWAI/sUyaTTrsPe5A7l6gwP8HV1xfew/rSqIhk2yHGQiZCGc26dun9 0=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5600,1067,7715"; a="83412746"
Received: from ironmsg03-l.qualcomm.com ([172.30.48.18]) by sabertooth01.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 17 Feb 2015 13:11:27 -0800
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.09,595,1418112000"; d="scan'208";a="842593725"
Received: from nasanexm01f.na.qualcomm.com ([10.85.0.32]) by Ironmsg03-L.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 17 Feb 2015 13:11:27 -0800
Received: from resnick2.qualcomm.com (10.80.80.8) by NASANEXM01F.na.qualcomm.com (10.85.0.32) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.995.29; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 13:11:25 -0800
Message-ID: <54E3AE7C.9040303@qti.qualcomm.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 15:11:24 -0600
From: Pete Resnick <presnick@qti.qualcomm.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.7; en-US; rv:1.9.1.9) Gecko/20100630 Eudora/3.0.4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <peter@andyet.net>
References: <20150217194951.32741.94403.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <54E39F72.9000709@andyet.net>
In-Reply-To: <54E39F72.9000709@andyet.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Originating-IP: [10.80.80.8]
X-ClientProxiedBy: NASANEXM01B.na.qualcomm.com (10.85.0.82) To NASANEXM01F.na.qualcomm.com (10.85.0.32)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uta/IPo7u-aomH3hInGwuBgAY2ZE8oI>
Cc: oritl@microsoft.com, uta@ietf.org, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>, uta-chairs@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-uta-tls-bcp.all@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Uta] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-uta-tls-bcp-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: uta@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: UTA working group mailing list <uta.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/uta>, <mailto:uta-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/uta/>
List-Post: <mailto:uta@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:uta-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta>, <mailto:uta-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 21:11:30 -0000

On 2/17/15 2:07 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote:

> On 2/17/15 12:49 PM, Alissa Cooper wrote:
>
>> So my question is whether we should consider this document effectively
>> silent about the choice of cipher suites to be used when we 
>> standardize a
>> new application protocol in the IETF, or an update to an existing
>> protocol.
>
> If an application protocol wishes to follow the recommendations here, 
> someone needs to write a document that says so.

What about new protocols?

>> That is the impression that I get from the text right now, and
>> it doesn't quite match the way we've been using/citing the document in
>> some recent discussions of other drafts.
>
> Do you have examples?

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-paws-protocol-20#section-7

pr

-- 
Pete Resnick<http://www.qualcomm.com/~presnick/>
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. - +1 (858)651-4478

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email