Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-pce-pceps-tls13-03: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-pce-pceps-tls13/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Further to Eric's comment, I'm completely confused by question #4 of the shepherd writeup. While the document claims there are no implementations known, the shepherd writeup says there's at least one (and it was easy), and makes another "Yes" remark that I don't understand. Forwarding a comment from Orie Steele, incoming ART Area Director: Noting the comment on 0-RTT / early data regarding secrecy, and the comment on https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc8253#section-3.4 * Negotiation of a ciphersuite providing for confidentiality is RECOMMENDED. I'm not an expert on PCEPS, but I wonder why the need for the note at all given PCEPs only recommends confidentiality, and the requirement above states early data is forbidden. _______________________________________________ Pce mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/pce
