Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-rfc8447bis-08.txt
> Requests to experts for published documents tends to come from IANA directly. > But I think that your remedy is fine. By my memory, about 80-90 percent come from IANA; some come directly to the TLS experts and we have to remember to CC them into the thread. And requiring IANA to forward the request with knowing whether or not someone is a WG/RG chair seems a little burdensome on them. If the WG/RG has consensus to ask for a codepoint, then it is reasonable to allow the codepoint to be assigned. So maybe add "Experts can approve registrations if the working or research group reaches consensus about the need for code point assignment and the chairs of a group request assignment." ___ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-rfc8447bis-08.txt
On Wed, Jan 31, 2024, at 07:16, Salz, Rich wrote: >> This version incorporates all known issues. The authors believe this version >> is ready for WGLC. > > Yes, pretty much. Two nits than can be fixed during AUTH48 > > This sentence in Sec 15 confuses me: > For this reason, designated experts should decline code point > registrations for documents which have already been adopted or are > being proposed for adoption by IETF working groups or IRTF research > groups. > > Presumably, you want the RG/WG chair to make the request? Or do you > mean "other than the TLS WG" ? Requests to experts for published documents tends to come from IANA directly. But I think that your remedy is fine. If the WG/RG has consensus to ask for a codepoint, then it is reasonable to allow the codepoint to be assigned. So maybe add "Experts can approve registrations if the working or research group reaches consensus about the need for code point assignment and the chairs of a group request assignment." ___ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-rfc8447bis-08.txt
> This version incorporates all known issues. The authors believe this version > is ready for WGLC. Yes, pretty much. Two nits than can be fixed during AUTH48 This sentence in Sec 15 confuses me: For this reason, designated experts should decline code point registrations for documents which have already been adopted or are being proposed for adoption by IETF working groups or IRTF research groups. Presumably, you want the RG/WG chair to make the request? Or do you mean "other than the TLS WG" ? Also, a nit, sometimes the tense is not consistent. For example, Sec 5 says: Ciphersuites marked as EXPORT use weak ciphers and were deprecated in TLS 1.1 [RFC4346]. Cipher suites marked as anon do not provide any authentication and are vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks and are deprecated in TLS 1.1 [RFC4346]. RC4 is a weak cipher and is deprecated in [RFC7465]. A mix of "were" "are" and "is" in three consecutive sentences :) ___ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
