Subject: [kitten] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-kitten-tls-channel-bindings-for-tls13-09

From: Niclas Comstedt via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2021 12:35:46 -0700

Reviewer: Niclas Comstedt
Review result: Ready

This is an OPS-DIR review of “Channel Bindings for TLS 1.3” 
<draft-ietf-kitten-tls-channel-bindings-for-tls13>

This document defines a channel binding that is compatible with TLS 1.3

I find the document easy to read and straightforward. It is providing a gap in the 
latest TLS standards version by introducing tls-exporter, a binding type that will 
work with TLS 1.3.

I did not find any operational issues with the document.

/nco

---

From: Ludovic BOCQUET <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2021 22:12:43 +0000

Hello,

It is possible to add in "Updates": 7677?

In the text too?

And at the bottom:

[RFC7677]  Tony Hansen,
              "SCRAM-SHA-256 and SCRAM-SHA-256-PLUS Simple
              Authentication and Security Layer (SASL) Mechanisms",
              RFC7677, DOI 10.17487/RFC7677, November 2015,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7677>.

Thanks in advance.

Regards,

BOCQUET Ludovic

________________________________________
De : Kitten <[email-masked]> de la part de Niclas Comstedt via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Envoyé : mercredi 13 octobre 2021 21:35:46
À : [email-masked]
Cc : [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Objet : [kitten] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-kitten-tls-channel-bindings-for-tls13-09

/nco

_______________________________________________
Kitten mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kitten

---

From: "Sam Whited" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2021 09:41:24 -0400

As I've mentioned before to you, I don't believe it updates this
document in any way as the statement about unique master secrets in that
document is still true either way and does not need to be modified. I'm
not against adding this if others also agree, but I just don't see it.

Maybe you could propose some text for how you think it updates 7677 or
where you think a reference to 7677 would be appropriate and that would
make things more clear?

—Sam

On Thu, Oct 14, 2021, at 18:12, Ludovic BOCQUET wrote:
> [RFC7677]  Tony Hansen,              "SCRAM-SHA-256 and SCRAM-SHA-256-
> PLUS Simple              Authentication and Security Layer (SASL)
> Mechanisms",              RFC7677, DOI 10.17487/RFC7677, November
> 2015,              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7677>.
>
> Thanks in advance.

-- 
Sam Whited

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2021 14:44:52 +0100

> not against adding this if others also agree, but I just don't see it.
As RFC 7677 only specifies use of "tls-unique" as 
mandatory-to-implement, I agree that it should be updated to point to 
your draft.
> where you think a reference to 7677 would be appropriate and that would

How about a short new section ("Update to RFC 7677") that contains 
something like the following:

    As "tls-unique" channel binding is not defined for TLS 1.3 [RFC8446],
    when using SCRAM-SHA-256/SCRAM-SHA-256-PLUS over TLS 1.3, the
    "tls-exporter" channel binding [tls-1.3-channel-binding] MUST be the
    default channel binding (in the sense specified in Section 6.1 of
    [RFC5802]) to use.    Note that this document doesn't change the default
    channel binding to use for SCRAM-SHA-256/SCRAM-SHA-256-PLUS over TLS 1.2
    [RFC5246], which is still "tls-unique".

Best Regards,

Alexey

---

From: "Sam Whited" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2021 10:21:35 -0400

I don't think RFC 7677 actually does define a mandatory-to- implement
channel binding, or am I missing something? If it does, that would make
sense as a good reason to update it.

—Sam

On Mon, Oct 25, 2021, at 09:44, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> As RFC 7677 only specifies use of "tls-unique" as mandatory-to-
> implement, I agree that it should be updated to point to your draft.
>> Maybe you could propose some text for how you think it updates 7677
>> or where you think a reference to 7677 would be appropriate and that
>> would make things more clear?

---

From: Alexey Melnikov <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2021 15:23:53 +0100

On 25/10/2021 15:21, Sam Whited wrote:

> channel binding, or am I missing something?
It doesn't change the MTI "tls-unique" defined in RFC 5802. Your draft 
already updates RFC 5802, so I think it should similarly update RFC 7677.
> If it does, that would make

---

From: "Sam Whited" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2021 13:27:46 -0400

I see; that makes sense. An update has been submitted; thanks!

—Sam

-- 
Sam Whited