Subject: [Taps] Eric Rescorla's No Record on draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage-08: (with COMMENT)

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 07:13:58 -0700

Eric Rescorla has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage-08: No Record

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://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-taps-transports-usage/

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

I have not yet completed my review of this document, but I note that it is
targeted for Informative but also contains RFC2119 normative language, e.g.,

"TCP implementations MUST NOT use
 TFO by default, but only use TFO if requested explicitly by the
  application on a per-service-port basis."

If the intent is that this is to be Informational then this should be removed,
and if it's to be BCP, then it needs to go back to IETF-LC for that

---

From: Gorry Fairhurst <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 15:22:42 +0100

Hi Eric,

The text you mention is the final para of section 3 of RFC 7413. I 
suspect the most appropriate correction would be to identify the section 
number in the text, as done for other cited RFCs, e.g. Section 3 of 
RFC7413 states that a TCP implementations MUST NOT use TFO by default, 
but only use TFO if requested explicitly by the application on a 
per-service-port basis.

Gorry

On 11/09/2017, 15:13, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> Taps mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/taps

---

From: Michael Welzl <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 16:26:27 +0200

Hi,

Sorry for the noise and for my ignorance regarding IETF style here -

this is indeed a mistake, in that the statement that you mention about TFO was supposed to be a quote from RFC 7413, but doesn’t stand out as such  (so, good catch, thanks!).

How do I make this clear enough to avoid a procedural problem - e.g., would this be ok?
***
TCP implementations MUST NOT use TFO by default, but only
use TFO if requested explicitly by the application on a per-service-
port basis [RFC7413].
***

Or would it have to be, e.g.:
***
[RFC7413] states that TCP implementations MUST NOT use TFO by default, but only
use TFO if requested explicitly by the application on a per-service-
port basis [RFC7413].
***

Thanks again,

cheers,
Michael

> On Sep 11, 2017, at 4:13 PM, Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: "Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 16:53:12 +0200

Hi Micheal, 

I also just caught that, assuming is was an copy-and-past left over; I think the best options are either:

***
[RFC7413] states that TCP implementations "MUST NOT use TFO by default, but only use TFO if requested explicitly by the application on a per-service-port basis" [RFC7413].
***
-> explicit citation

or 

***
TCP implementations can not use TFO by default, but only use TFO if requested explicitly by the application on a per-service-port basis [RFC7413].
***
-> no normative language

Mirja

> Am 11.09.2017 um 16:26 schrieb Michael Welzl <[email-masked]>:
> 
> Hi,
>

---

From: Spencer Dawkins at IETF <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 10:44:13 -0500

FWIW,

On Mon, Sep 11, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Mirja Kuehlewind (IETF) <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> [RFC7413] states that TCP implementations "MUST NOT use TFO by default,
> per-service-port basis" [RFC7413].
> ***
> -> explicit citation
>
> or
>
> ***
> TCP implementations can not use TFO by default, but only use TFO if
> requested explicitly by the application on a per-service-port basis
> [RFC7413].
> ***
> -> no normative language

Either of these would work. My suggestion is that the document use the
first option, because it's perfectly accurate, and likely more accessible
for future readers, but I'm happy to support either option for this text.

Spencer

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Sep 2017 10:37:49 -0700

That WFM