Subject: [dtn] Suresh Krishnan's Discuss on draft-ietf-dtn-tcpclv4-18: (with DISCUSS)

From: Suresh Krishnan via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2020 19:35:31 -0800

Suresh Krishnan has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-dtn-tcpclv4-18: Discuss

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-dtn-tcpclv4/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

* Section 4.2:

" TLS 1.2 [RFC5246] or any successors [RFC8446] that are compatible with TLS
1.2"

Hopefully this is easy to resolve but I am not sure what exactly you intended
to say with this phrase "that are compatible with TLS 1.2". Can you please
expand and clarify? (I think going through Appendix D of RFC8446 may bring up
specific things you might be looking for). A similar construct is also used in
Section 4.4.1.

---

From: Brian Sipos <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Feb 2020 03:55:30 +0000

Suresh,
I'm including responses below with prefix "BS: "

On Tue, 2020-02-18 at 19:35 -0800, Suresh Krishnan via Datatracker wrote:
> Please refer to 
> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> 
> specific things you might be looking for). 
BS: A clarified fragment is "or any successors which are compatible with that
TLS ClientHello". The intent is that the TLS version negotiation uses the same
initial message.
After guidance from the AD, the TCPCLv4 is going to use TLS 1.3 as the baseline
version but the ClientHello use is unchanged. Implementations can use the
ClientHello and security policy to negotiate particular version at runtime.

> A similar construct is also used in
> Section 4.4.1.
BS: I removed the language from this statement and left only "begin a TLS
handshake in accordance with RFC8446."

---

From: Suresh Krishnan <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 29 Feb 2020 08:21:25 +0000

Hi Brian,
  That works for me. I will clear as soon as the new rev hits.

Regards
Suresh

On Feb 28, 2020, at 10:55 PM, Brian Sipos <[email-masked]<mailto:[email-masked]>> wrote:

Suresh,

Please refer to

* Section 4.2: