Subject: Re: [Uta] New Version Notification - draft-ietf-uta-tls-bcp-09.txt

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 14:21:20 -0600

Looking through this rev, I only see three minor points brought up by 
reviewers that don't appear (to me) to have been directly addressed:

- It was suggested that the document should updates RFC 5246 and RFC 6347.
- At the end of 7.5, it wasn't clear what "foregoing" referred to.
- It was suggested that an Informative/Normative  references scrub take 
place. (-prohibiting-rc4 was moved to Normative, but otherwise 
everything else remained where it was.)

I'm comfortable putting this on the IESG agenda in its current form, and 
can simply note these items in my ballot. If the editors or the shepherd 
wish me to hold off, let me know in the next 24 hours.

pr

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

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 13:26:32 -0700

> - It was suggested that the document should updates RFC 5246 and RFC 6347.

Personally I think that would be fine - I'm curious what the UTA WG 
chairs and sponsoring AD (and perhaps TLS WG chairs) think about it.

> - At the end of 7.5, it wasn't clear what "foregoing" referred to.

That entire section - there is no (need for) certificate revocation in DANE.

> everything else remained where it was.)

The authors didn't see a need to move any other references.

> wish me to hold off, let me know in the next 24 hours.

As you wish. :-)

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://andyet.com/

---

From: Yaron Sheffer <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 22:36:02 +0200

> chairs and sponsoring AD (and perhaps TLS WG chairs) think about it.

I beg to differ. I think the whole intent of the document is to be a 
"best practice" on how to use/deploy these protocols (TLS and DTLS), 
rather than an attempt to modify them. To me, adding the "updates" would 
imply that this needs to be Standards Track.

Thanks,
	Yaron

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 13:40:51 -0700

> imply that this needs to be Standards Track.

Yaron, you are correct and I typed without thinking. We had several 
conversations about this point in the WG and with the Gen-ART reviewer 
and always came to the conclusion that this documet does not in fact 
*update* the protocol specifications (although it would be appropriate 
for those who implement and deploy TLS and DTLS to familiarize 
themselves with these best practices).

My apologies for the confusion.

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://andyet.com/

---

From: Pete Resnick <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 14:53:50 -0600

>> - It was suggested that the document should updates RFC 5246 and RFC 

Consider me convinced by Yaron's comment that this isn't an issue.

> That entire section - there is no (need for) certificate revocation in 

So probably best to s/The foregoing considerations/The consideration in 
this section.

> The authors didn't see a need to move any other references.

Consider me again convinced.

>> wish me to hold off, let me know in the next 24 hours.

Given that the only thing left is the editorial bit in 7.5, I will push 
the button. Thanks for your input.

pr

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre - &yet <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 14:40:14 -0700

> So probably best to s/The foregoing considerations/The consideration in

Yes, that's more accurate. Noted!

Peter

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 06:43:43 -0800

A new version (-09) has been submitted for draft-ietf-uta-tls-bcp:
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-uta-tls-bcp-09.txt

The IETF datatracker page for this Internet-Draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-uta-tls-bcp/

Diff from previous version:
http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-uta-tls-bcp-09

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

IETF Secretariat.