Hi Ben, Thanks for the explanation.
I would think this is actually a PS given it extents a protocol based on the extension point this protocol provides. Maybe it is not really adding a new function but it also kind of is: I would call probing for non-compliant implementations a protocol function. I mean if we would specify greasing for a new protocol, I think it would simply be part of the main spec. Mirja > On 16. Aug 2019, at 05:39, Benjamin Kaduk <ka...@mit.edu> wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 08:57:43AM -0700, Mirja Kühlewind via Datatracker > wrote: >> Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for >> draft-ietf-tls-grease-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/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-grease/ >> >> >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> COMMENT: >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Sorry one more comment/question I forgot earlier: Why is this document >> informational? Shouldn't it be at least experimental? > > I added a note to the shepherd writeup's "intended document status" entry: > > AD NOTE: Note that this has been successfully deployed for > over a year; it's not really an "experiment" anymore but rather > a useful thing that people do, both in TLS and elsewhere. This > is informational in the sense that "here is a thing you can do, > and some information about why you might want to do it". There's > no real protocol -- you send some codepoints and expect the other > endpoint to not change behavior as a result -- so it doesn't make sense > as a proposed standard. I suppose one could argue that it is a BCP > since it is for the health of the ecosystem, but that does not really > feel like a good match. So to me, Informational is the right status. > > -Ben > _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
