Subject: [dns-privacy] Alexey Melnikov's Discuss on draft-ietf-dprive-dtls-and-tls-profiles-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 09 May 2017 15:43:05 -0700

Alexey Melnikov has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dprive-dtls-and-tls-profiles-09: 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://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-dprive-dtls-and-tls-profiles/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

(I just updated both my DISCUSS and my comment section.)

I would like to ballot YES on this document, but I would like to discuss
the following:

Sorry for being DownRef police, but RFC 7918 is clearly Normative
(because there is a SHOULD level requirement), but it is listed as
Informative reference. It would be a DownRef once it is made Normative,
unless the procedure from RFC 8067 is used. Is RFC 7918 a suitable
DownRef? Is it widely implemented?

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

I am agreeing with Ekr comments. I am also agreeing on first and last
Mirja's comment.

Section on future DHCP extension is a bit "hand-wavy". Is any work on
this planned?

---

From: Sara Dickinson <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 13:04:08 +0100

> On 9 May 2017, at 23:43, Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Informative reference.

I think that is a hangover from when it was referenced as a I-D

> It would be a DownRef once it is made Normative,

I just checked the early versions of the document and they actually included a note at the end of section 12 which has since been removed:

“ [NOTE: The references to (works in progress) should be upgraded to
   MUST's if those references become RFC's prior to publication of this
   document.]

At the time both RFC7918 and RFC7924 were still I-Ds. With that in mind:

- Since RFC7918 is only Informational would it make more sense to use MAY and leave it as an informative reference. 

- But change the recommendation regarding RFC7924 to be a MUST and make that Normative (it is currently only informative).

> I am agreeing with Ekr comments.

OK,  noted. 

> I am also agreeing on first and last
> Mirja's comment.

I haven’t seen a review from Mirja - was there one I missed?

> Section on future DHCP extension is a bit "hand-wavy". Is any work on

There was some debate about including this at all given that to my knowledge there is no current work on this, but IIRC in the end it was felt that something should be said on it (however hand-wavy).  I see Suresh raised this point too so I will look at the document he referenced and respond separately on that. 

Regards

Sara.

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 13:23:08 +0100

Hi Sara,

On Thu, May 11, 2017, at 01:04 PM, Sara Dickinson wrote:
> I just checked the early versions of the document and they actually
> included a note at the end of section 12 which has since been removed:
> 

Ok. This makes some sense.

> - Since RFC7918 is only Informational would it make more sense to use MAY
> and leave it as an informative reference. 

No. Firstly, a MAY level requirement is still Normative, as it is
required to implement. Secondly, whether a reference is normative or not
has nothing to do with whether the document being referenced is
Informational or any other kind.

> - But change the recommendation regarding RFC7924 to be a MUST and make
> that Normative (it is currently only informative).

I missed that. Please also make it Normative. (I have no opinion on
whether it should stay as SHOULD or become a MUST.)

Thank you,
Alexey