From nobody Thu Jul 1 01:38:45 2021 Return-Path: X-Original-To: perc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: perc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48BCA3A1D4A; Thu, 1 Jul 2021 01:38:40 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.097 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id AbuCKN1OI1HH; Thu, 1 Jul 2021 01:38:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-ua1-x933.google.com (mail-ua1-x933.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::933]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 367443A1D44; Thu, 1 Jul 2021 01:38:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-ua1-x933.google.com with SMTP id n61so2172275uan.2; Thu, 01 Jul 2021 01:38:35 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=JIjfKQp6AA3+3QgO7NzGp5sBPWbwD0+szRnDloA0f4w=; b=r+sPsPhqGwQxRuU3r5t+V3aPhJzS93WEDXoTUjgl7aN1rOf2ZtIBxdZOAibfv+MN6i 1M4T49zDkZg6z7EnjNfKVFcbY+iuWid2+opwXdfHQcWOSirFsgnmJvXCuT3Rk8zrB6ph f8h1teDXqG7efeu8ENyZo8a4uejuCf0VJD/UbM8wSbkYWax5bincOmMF2BVA4x9IfFAQ EJdNbFqOS/StlsxEnLMdV4bdjlNpZypiC9+GPFVj0jqgfVdlzq2pR4LiTI/f2ygDHPBK tSLM7S7qMND8yV/5uvZpa+d2sLHxmY7Cd4UhlZAc8NSnw3ZvMa8DLl0jK5yc9FLkY/IB C7QA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=JIjfKQp6AA3+3QgO7NzGp5sBPWbwD0+szRnDloA0f4w=; b=gOrcQA8sZNCaBJBVnAlPUdVwn83NCO/yjxWabC2KidGD2UKaTMhGkU67x6IUYUJCME L9DisyXjWcbf5AHuT9qp50p0LylLvKGr6l7WKu22hYbR1mmgrg+cMDDlv5KtMyK3o7IE +k96cD9LRqJjYB25q/ApengwU3Z7SAfuKC5LQApMp3wOP4dfWR2Ki+D/Zgwt6+U8LiJD qQwr8Y7jEjJBWoJp+MRTC3iJ+jX5JGkv/Yyiza+85lpcCCNpy2m/KWO1HVoWtT02ZuDQ DdJWDsvUmuZv2qN3O60ifkHH67CHuyynLzKE1+OP/L46zfLMudLRswhqHVAPw5WneLKo eAsg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530UbOxffAklj1st3m1OPxY992fBTJDQdekpVxToUnq1iaak0DWZ e2LdjYAEOWOyFHmGCQkwA62JTSjY5fGgyK77pqtjPxFM1xI= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJw3kxEv6w6z/P3Gx1GhojWeCipxrRC1jqwzQTX2wJqpwQkmFg2CbV+SX254RtuQPyfEUtnK4TqRIWBMb0o6yBc= X-Received: by 2002:ab0:3b8a:: with SMTP id p10mr3793325uaw.101.1625128713444; Thu, 01 Jul 2021 01:38:33 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <162510321507.13724.12968550804927630403@ietfa.amsl.com> In-Reply-To: <162510321507.13724.12968550804927630403@ietfa.amsl.com> From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2021 01:38:22 -0700 Message-ID: To: Benjamin Kaduk Cc: The IESG , perc-chairs@ietf.org, perc@ietf.org, draft-ietf-perc-dtls-tunnel@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ade1a205c60bc3e1" Archived-At: Subject: Re: [Perc] Benjamin Kaduk's Discuss on draft-ietf-perc-dtls-tunnel-09: (with DISCUSS and COMMENT) X-BeenThere: perc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Privacy Enhanced RTP Conferencing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2021 08:38:41 -0000 --000000000000ade1a205c60bc3e1 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 6:35 PM Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker < noreply@ietf.org> wrote: > (2) I'll also mention here so that the IESG can talk about it during our > telechat (but with no intent to insist on a change): this document > specifies a versioned protocol and creates a registry. Are we happy > with the current Informational status, as opposed to Proposed Standard? > I do see that the topic was touched on in the shepherd writeup, but the > treatment there did not feel especially compelling to me. > Thanks for catching this. My understanding is that this document started life seeking Proposed Standard, during which the IANA Considerations was crafted. It was later (around version -06) changed to Informational and presented only as an "example" (the shepherd writeup says as much) rather than a proposed standard, but the issue you're raising never came to light after that transition. I imagine the working group should decide how they want to resolve this. If the preference is to have the registry, then perhaps the simplest thing to do would be to return it to Standards Track, though that will necessitate a new Last Call since the first one was for Informational. But if that's done and the other DISCUSS points are addressed, I suspect it doesn't need to come back for another full IESG Evaluation. If the preference is to keep Informational, then we do need to figure out whether and how to handle creation of a registry for a document that's not on the standards track. We should, in any event, clarify what's meant by "example" in the shepherd writeup, and possibly update the Abstract or Introduction to say something similar. It currently doesn't. -MSK --000000000000ade1a205c60bc3e1 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 6:35 PM Benjamin = Kaduk via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.= org> wrote:
(2) I'll also mention here so that the IESG can talk about it during ou= r
telechat (but with no intent to insist on a change): this document
specifies a versioned protocol and creates a registry.=C2=A0 Are we happy with the current Informational status, as opposed to Proposed Standard?
I do see that the topic was touched on in the shepherd writeup, but the
treatment there did not feel especially compelling to me.
<= div>
Thanks for catching this.=C2=A0 My understanding is that= this document started life seeking Proposed Standard, during which the IAN= A Considerations was crafted.=C2=A0 It was later (around version -06) chang= ed to Informational and presented only as an "example" (the sheph= erd writeup says as much) rather than a proposed standard, but the issue yo= u're raising never came to light after that transition.

<= /div>
I imagine the working group should decide how they want to resolv= e this.=C2=A0 If the preference is to have the registry, then perhaps the s= implest thing to do would be to return it to Standards Track, though that w= ill necessitate a new Last Call since the first one was for Informational.= =C2=A0 But if that's done and the other DISCUSS points are addressed, I= suspect it doesn't need to come back for another full IESG Evaluation.=

If the preference is to keep Informational, t= hen we do need to figure out whether and how to handle creation of a regist= ry for a document that's not on the standards track.

We should, in any event, clarify what's meant by "example&q= uot; in the shepherd writeup, and possibly update the Abstract or Introduct= ion to say something similar.=C2=A0 It currently doesn't.

-MSK
--000000000000ade1a205c60bc3e1-- From nobody Thu Jul 1 05:20:00 2021 Return-Path: X-Original-To: perc@ietf.org Delivered-To: perc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 172DB3A0BB9; Thu, 1 Jul 2021 05:19:53 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Francesca Palombini via Datatracker To: "The IESG" Cc: draft-ietf-perc-dtls-tunnel@ietf.org, perc-chairs@ietf.org, perc@ietf.org, suhasietf@gmail.com, suhasietf@gmail.com X-Test-IDTracker: no X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.33.0 Auto-Submitted: auto-generated Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Francesca Palombini Message-ID: <162514199306.25415.15587797003811817307@ietfa.amsl.com> Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2021 05:19:53 -0700 Archived-At: Subject: [Perc] Francesca Palombini's No Objection on draft-ietf-perc-dtls-tunnel-09: (with COMMENT) X-BeenThere: perc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 List-Id: Privacy Enhanced RTP Conferencing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2021 12:19:53 -0000 Francesca Palombini has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-perc-dtls-tunnel-09: 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 DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-perc-dtls-tunnel/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for the work on this document. I agree with Ben's and Eric's comments: the document seems to me to be written as a standard track doc, which defines a new protocol, rather than informational or even experimental. I just wanted to add that this to me is not only about the creation of the IANA registry, but the whole text (my comment is somewhat related to Eric's comment about using BCP 14 terminology). Francesca From nobody Sat Jul 17 20:14:13 2021 Return-Path: X-Original-To: perc@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: perc@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A3EE63A0B41 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 2021 20:14:11 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -2.098 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Sy6dPG5-fq-v for ; Sat, 17 Jul 2021 20:14:10 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-vs1-xe31.google.com (mail-vs1-xe31.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::e31]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 25C333A0B38 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 2021 20:14:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-vs1-xe31.google.com with SMTP id a66so7397681vsd.10 for ; Sat, 17 Jul 2021 20:14:04 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=g0HKrhtYqQ5kG6JmlizIosTuNG4/DwESAIlsT6j8g20=; b=usFFzYWiknU2TGU477rNVl2CUSm06Pftt9PXX37BOHybkSTU358EnZUDwYCflSeTKm CYF4v+G351vw9j/qbSNEeCuMdhlLWmvMYdbUqvfGIz2sr8QNB2xFhfXlJJLttkSDYwXO 3ydKImm0PdJJUuZXezLZzId7rlmSF8uYgqMEL7Gmat91lisnaQUj248LnHgmdTT2k7zg NEbC9VrtpGx6PcjLMzENKhJ7pGsCqunZRdnEKbS+iPWeZBOm2g/j0Kh1U3x1VrtvGau4 gZZ0gEbzP5srwntTf1qhCvZrDJf6GxL74NGNXLP5W8EstlG5jSpyZqwiqVvcCtXqmVql i7CQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=g0HKrhtYqQ5kG6JmlizIosTuNG4/DwESAIlsT6j8g20=; b=VI815z5EOfML3H+N0yDfAxdgObSMewVdvznoNwvBFGiM0fRDnlQstbVbMFmTtxyEqj U8jb5FA+DmKjIbLjtkOys+cjGa5uvqJ/NxzZKGCxPmm0e8akSSPpIJcs9LN4lUkjLnNp aBwmW/d4qMpKjNzger93uAJwFbCjXHu5d2GumdeSGrAmdjn39LaHna5j2miv2K7MdjA8 3bRIACpj2hWdvWY128zhvkQZ196fu3tN4e09or+CbohNvrlMb/fd6Yv5+oFVwJ5w2dy7 Uqt+/zpQpoor08jQzEesq0+gunx1yxzNmKzLMVpqK2OkTVb3NpPndbtQKRmPPpaFFReh uD8w== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532DVUW86GgpXyCvH0Mbpehqpg2utWiKRJcjzV4bf85WCk2iSbHa x20cFSwXgqRQksynjJwl7FzQe/T2ZCl5gn+d8Y0eRGTa X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzYQdpAbFjYOgG0EXiWMfyvoIA2Yf++J2ey5yaJjaIYaOqmBrW7vVMNp2gfbDV1qxdA9/cQ+QGKECTzQBM6cjc= X-Received: by 2002:a67:1a45:: with SMTP id a66mr20482589vsa.15.1626578037992; Sat, 17 Jul 2021 20:13:57 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 From: "Murray S. Kucherawy" Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2021 20:13:44 -0700 Message-ID: To: perc@ietf.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000027702005c75d3672" Archived-At: Subject: [Perc] draft-ietf-perc-dtls-tunnel X-BeenThere: perc@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Privacy Enhanced RTP Conferencing List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2021 03:14:12 -0000 --00000000000027702005c75d3672 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Hi all, This document passed through the IESG late last month and as you can see it drew two DISCUSS questions. The first was about DTLS versioning, and the security Area Director did a thorough treatment on the issue. Does the Working Group have any response to it? The second is the matter of why this document is Informational when it's written as a Standards Track document. A related point is that it creates an IANA registry, normally something left for Standards documents. The shepherd writeup presents it as an example rather than a specification, but it really does have the look and feel of the latter. How does the WG want to proceed here? -MSK --00000000000027702005c75d3672 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi all,

This document passed= through the IESG late last month and as you can see it drew two DISCUSS qu= estions.=C2=A0 The first was about DTLS versioning, and the security Area D= irector did a thorough treatment on the issue.=C2=A0 Does the Working Group= have any response to it?

The second is the matter of why= this document is Informational when it's written as a Standards Track = document.=C2=A0 A related point is that it creates an IANA registry, normal= ly something left for Standards documents.=C2=A0 The shepherd writeup prese= nts it as an example rather than a specification, but it really does have t= he look and feel of the latter.=C2=A0 How does the WG want to proceed here?=

-MSK
--00000000000027702005c75d3672--