Hi Paul, > This added sentence will age poorly. Maybe it can point to the IANA > registry (or [BCP195] instead of [RFC9325]) ? Also I find "the BCP document" > not clear. If you mean [RFC9325] or [BCP195], please just state that clearly? My intuitive sense is that the IANA registry sometimes lags behind RFCs/BCPs - e.g. the registry currently lists both NULL cipher suites and (as one example) TLS_RSA_EXPORT_WITH_RC2_CBC_40_MD5 as DTLS-OK. So my preference is to point to BCP195 (and agreed that "the BCP document" -> "BCP195"). I could open a PR and would love you to review, if that works?
> This also raises the question that Valery raised before. Should this > document not be a BCP and be added to BCP195 ? I guess Sean punted this > question to the IESG, so I'll create the IESG ballot and point this > issue out to them. So we can leave this as is for now. Acknowledge. Please let me know if I should change it. > But you added Appendix F, which needs to be added to this list to refer > to this document, especially since if we leave it as-is and [BCP195] would > not get updated. I think Appendix F only gives a bird's-eye view of the changes, rather than listing specific cipher suites. So specifying it under "requested IANA actions" might be confusing? > NITS: "regsitry" -> "registry" Thanks for catching, fixed (on the github repo). best, Nimrod On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 at 21:30, Paul Wouters <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, 23 Jun 2025, [email protected] wrote: > > > Subject: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-deprecate-obsolete-kex-06.txt > > > > Internet-Draft draft-ietf-tls-deprecate-obsolete-kex-06.txt is now > available. > > It is a work item of the Transport Layer Security (TLS) WG of the IETF. > > > A diff from the previous version is available at: > > > https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-tls-deprecate-obsolete-kex-06 > > Two comments on the changes: > > > [RFC9325] contains the latest IETF recommendations for users of the > (D)TLS protocol (and specifically, (D)TLS 1.2) and this document > supersedes it in several points. Appendix F details the exact > differences. All other recommendations of the BCP document remain > valid. > > This added sentence will age poorly. Maybe it can point to the IANA > registry (or [BCP195] instead of [RFC9325]) ? Also I find "the BCP > document" > not clear. If you mean [RFC9325] or [BCP195], please just state that > clearly? > > This also raises the question that Valery raised before. Should this > document not be a BCP and be added to BCP195 ? I guess Sean punted this > question to the IESG, so I'll create the IESG ballot and point this > issue out to them. So we can leave this as is for now. > > For each regsitry entry in Appendix A, Appendix B, Appendix C, > Appendix D, and Appendix E, IANA is also requested to update the > registry entry's Reference column to refer to the this document. > > But you added Appendix F, which needs to be added to this list to refer > to this document, especially since if we leave it as-is and [BCP195] would > not get updated. > > NITS: "regsitry" -> "registry" > > Paul > > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
