Subject: [TLS] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-tls-tls13-cert-with-extern-psk-04: (with COMMENT)

From: Alissa Cooper via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 05:54:47 -0800

Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tls-tls13-cert-with-extern-psk-04: 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-tls13-cert-with-extern-psk/

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

Building on a point Barry made, I think it would be useful to distinguish in
the document whether this spec is experimental because we are waiting for
quantum computers to materialize, or whether it is experimental because current
implementors want to gain more experience with it before standardization. That
way if it does come back at some future point on the standards track the
context for why it was experimental in the first place will be there.

Please respond to the Gen-ART reviewer.

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 10:08:50 -0500

There was a lot of discussion in the TLS WG, and several implementors wanted to gain more experience with the specification before producing a standards-track RFC.  I am not sure that really helps if this document comes back in the future.

> Please respond to the Gen-ART reviewer.

I have done so.

Russ

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 10:05:49 -0800

On Thu, Dec 19, 2019 at 5:54 AM Alissa Cooper via Datatracker <
[email-masked]> wrote:

> implementors want to gain more experience with it before standardization.

>From my perspective it's experimental because there was very little
interest from implementors and we're trying to have more interest before we
do standard track protocols.

-Ekr

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

---

From: Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 13:40:05 -0500

Hi Russ,

> On Dec 19, 2019, at 10:08 AM, Russ Housley <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Alissa:
> 

I’m quite sure that it would, given that most of the time when the IESG reviews a document that is being promoted from experimental to standards track there is some discussion about why that is happening. The more that can be done to explain the context for the original classification, the better, because then readers do not have to guess. Asking future reviewers to re-read the TLS mailing list from X number of years ago is suboptimal compared to having one sentence in the document that explains this. As currently written, I think people could conclude that this document is experimental because large-scale quantum computers do not yet exist.

Best,
Alissa

---

From: Russ Housley <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Dec 2019 17:36:30 -0500

> On Dec 19, 2019, at 1:40 PM, Alissa Cooper <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Russ,
> 

Would adding this to the Introduction meet you needs?

   Several implementors wanted to gain more experience with this
   specification before producing a standards-track RFC.  As a
   result, this specification is being published as an Experimental
   RFC to enable interoperable implementations and gain deployment
   and operational experience.

Russ