Subject: Re: [kitten] Roman Danyliw's Discuss on draft-ietf-kitten-tls-channel-bindings-for-tls13-14: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT)

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2022 15:34:35 +0000

Hi Sam/Ben,

On 01/03/2022 00:06, Sam Whited wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 28, 2022, at 18:04, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
>> My willingness to advance this document for IESG consideration was
>> predicated on this document *not* having an "Updates:" relationship
>> with RFC 8446, based on my assessment of IETF consensus.  I understand
>> that you feel strongly that the "Updates:" relationship should be
>> present, but we can only add that relationship with IETF consensus,
>> and I do not believe that such consensus is present.  There is an
>> appeals process (§6.5 of RFC 2026) that applies if you think my
>> assessment of IETF consensus is flawed, and I'd be happy to hear about
>> any factors that I may have missed in making that assessment.
> I do not believe their was consensus either way; one or two people
> voiced an opinion that it should not update it, and I don't think anyone
> else joined the discussion. The usefulness of this document is extremely
> diminished if new implementations of TLS 1.3 can't find it and I
> absolutely believe the text updates the sentence saying that no channel
> bindings are defined.

If I am an implementor, I would find it through IANA website, so personally I don't see this as a problem.

Best Regards,
Alexey

---

From: "Sam Whited" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2022 07:31:17 -0500

I don't believe most people will look further than the document they're
implementing; it would be nice if that weren't the case, but I don't
think it is. In my experience most people don't look further than
glancing through a few sections and looking at examples (of course, TLS
is complicated enough that you likely can't come up with a working
implementation doing this, but never the less the point stands). The
point is to make it as easy as possible to find when you're implementing
related technologies; I don't think the IANA website does that (Though
it should be said that this is entirely speculation, of course).

—Sam

On Thu, Mar 3, 2022, at 10:34, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
>>> with RFC 8446, based on my assessment of IETF consensus.  I
>>> understand that you feel strongly that the "Updates:" relationship
>>> should be present, but we can only add that relationship with IETF
>>> consensus, and I do not believe that such consensus is present.
>>> There is an appeals process (§6.5 of RFC 2026) that applies if you
>>> think my assessment of IETF consensus is flawed, and I'd be happy to
>>> hear about any factors that I may have missed in making that
>>> assessment.
>> voiced an opinion that it should not update it, and I don't think
>> anyone else joined the discussion. The usefulness of this document is
>> extremely diminished if new implementations of TLS 1.3 can't find it
>> and I absolutely believe the text updates the sentence saying that no
>> channel bindings are defined.
>
> If I am an implementor, I would find it through IANA website, so
> personally I don't see this as a problem.
>
> Best Regards, Alexey

-- 
Sam Whited