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 21:59 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 740241A90E5; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 13:59:56 -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 n_KTBEoODafg; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 13:59:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sabertooth02.qualcomm.com (sabertooth02.qualcomm.com [65.197.215.38]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0380B1A90EF; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 13:59:43 -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=1424210383; x=1455746383; h=message-id:date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject: references:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=ATxKvYqGU/gPy/0xXvfgBOEPhSyaL3qEs7ChJBpeXp8=; b=hMxliH8j+UGQf3v5zg0IwEKadoJkSB7g41GoegCbJZPwzSImA0UJffpJ TWOIMm7kd7wKFPC5sAJxFX0EDt2QstI9smBnpjXYZS4wZJsGYqsHc9Nee 6UZW4x9nrc9gR4UkxJRQX2L68BEuQYTLqbeCR83+yL4AihtZkrIm4i8+t I=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="5600,1067,7715"; a="84234322"
Received: from ironmsg04-r.qualcomm.com ([172.30.46.18]) by sabertooth02.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 17 Feb 2015 13:59:39 -0800
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.09,595,1418112000"; d="scan'208";a="907411008"
Received: from nasanexm01f.na.qualcomm.com ([10.85.0.32]) by Ironmsg04-R.qualcomm.com with ESMTP/TLS/RC4-SHA; 17 Feb 2015 13:59:39 -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 13:59:38 -0800
Message-ID: <54E3B9C9.8060609@qti.qualcomm.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 15:59:37 -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> <54E3AE7C.9040303@qti.qualcomm.com> <54E3B324.8090006@andyet.net>
In-Reply-To: <54E3B324.8090006@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/TPGTGpgnR1_TI0l_XeAIgsbr9N4>
Cc: oritl@microsoft.com, uta@ietf.org, Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>, uta-chairs@ietf.org, draft-ietf-uta-tls-bcp.all@ietf.org, The IESG <iesg@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 21:59:56 -0000

On 2/17/15 3:31 PM, Peter Saint-Andre - &yet wrote:
> On 2/17/15 2:11 PM, Pete Resnick wrote:
>> 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?
>
> Right, I was thinking of existing protocols. For new protocols, I do 
> think it makes sense to reference this BCP.

But that is exactly what the PAWS document does, and in fact PAWS was 
asked to do so by the security ADs, if I recall correctly.

pr

> Something vaguely along the lines of what we did in RFC 6648 seems 
> sensible.
>
>>>> 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
>
> Thanks. That reference seems fine to me.
>
> Peter
>

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email