Subject: [TLS] Alia Atlas' No Objection on draft-ietf-tls-falsestart-02: (with COMMENT)

From: "Alia Atlas" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 May 2016 18:16:52 -0700

Alia Atlas has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tls-falsestart-02: No Objection

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-tls-falsestart/

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

For Stephen, yes, I noticed :-)

In support of Kathleen's comment and based on the shepherd's write-up,
why is this experimental and what is
the experiment?

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 02:30:46 +0100

> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-falsestart/

Great. Sean's is better though:-)

> why is this experimental and what is

There's no good answer, sorry. I knew folks would ask, so I asked
the WG and it seems to me to be a case that nobody cares really so
they just picked one and aren't much energised to talk more about
it. That's not too unreasonable. See the thread at [1] for some
more.

Given that this is widely deployed and a similar feature is being
included in TLS1.3, there is no real experiment here, what the WG
care about is that this RFC be not-PS I reckon.

S.

[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/UDiFtVrQhjP9MXMW45tiYHrCDn8

> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>

---

From: Bodo Moeller <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 May 2016 11:46:00 +0200

> [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/UDiFtVrQhjP9MXMW45tiYHrCDn8

I'm certainly completely fine with "Informational".

Based on the criteria in
https://www.ietf.org/iesg/informational-vs-experimental.html Section 3
(specifically, #4), I decided last year that "Experimental" seemed more
appropriate than "Informational" (revising what I'd said a bit earlier in
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg16193.html).

Given the current wide deployment, however, I agree that this isn't really
an experiment at this point. As far as I am aware, no one really would
prefer "Experimental" over "Informational" for this spec, while I've seen
the opposite a few times (and most, presumably, just don't care one way or
the other). Thus, the document probably should be "Informational" after all.

Bodo

Bodo