Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) Labels for Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) Usages
draft-ietf-tram-alpn-08
Yes
No Objection
(Alissa Cooper)
(Benoît Claise)
(Brian Haberman)
(Jari Arkko)
(Kathleen Moriarty)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Pete Resnick)
(Ted Lemon)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.
Richard Barnes Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2014-11-24 for -07)
Unknown
The labels seem a bit long, considering that HTTP/2.0 has gotten slimmed down to h2. It seems worth mentioning in the security considerations the reason why this spec was developed, namely so that proxies intending to handle one type of TLS traffic (HTTPS) could get out of the way or shut down STUN/TLS flows that could cause bad consequences.
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
(was Discuss, Yes)
Yes
Yes
(2014-12-05)
Unknown
Amanda has confirmed that the IANA Designated Expert says this draft is good to go. I was holding a Discuss for IANA, and I'm now clearing.
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-11-20 for -07)
Unknown
I'd forgotten how much I like short documents. Thanks! Abstract s/layer negotiate/layer to negotiate/
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -07)
Unknown
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-11-25 for -07)
Unknown
Section 2 is entirely unnecessary. I suggest adding the two citations to Section 3, and then removing Section 2. Simon, thanks for the most excellent shepherd writeup... short, and with exactly the right detail. ...and move to Informational.
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -07)
Unknown
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -07)
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -07)
Unknown
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -07)
Unknown
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -07)
Unknown
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -07)
Unknown
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-11-24 for -07)
Unknown
I saw a comment at one stage in the discussion of this to the effect that TLS1.3 is aiming to hide the ALPN labels which are in clear in TLS1.2. I wasn't sure if that was considered problematic or not for folks interested in this spec. Do we now know? And might that be worth a mention somewhere as it could cause developers problems if they do assume that ALPN labels will be in clear for all time. (And there would I think be a reason for this spec to include that - I think the readership of this one is maybe likely to be less familiar with TLS internals, compared to e.g. HTTP devs. (But I could easily be wrong there.)
Ted Lemon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -07)
Unknown