Document History
1. Does the working group (WG) consensus represent the strong concurrence of a
few individuals, with others being silent, or did it reach broad agreement?
The draft that required support for TLS 1.3 and freezed the development of TLS
1.2 was initially present to the TLS WG. Later it was split into two drafts -
one freezing TLS 1.2 (in TLS WG) and the other - requiring support for TLS 1.3
(in UTA WG). The drafts are related: since TLS 1.2 is frozen, only TLS 1.3
would be developed, thus it must be supported by new protocols.
For some reason, the first draft (draft-ietf-tls-tls12-frozen) was mostly
discussed. This draft (draft-ietf-uta-require-tls13) was only lightly discussed
in UTA WG, perhaps because its content was believed to be obvious.
2. Was there controversy about particular points, or were there decisions where
the consensus was particularly rough?
No.
3. Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If
so, please summarize the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the
responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this
questionnaire is publicly available.)
No.
4. For protocol documents, are there existing implementations of the contents of
the document? Have a significant number of potential implementers indicated
plans to implement? Are any existing implementations reported somewhere,
either in the document itself (as RFC 7942 recommends) or elsewhere
(where)?
This document doesn't define a protocol. There are numerous implementations of
TLS 1.3.
Additional Reviews
5. Do the contents of this document closely interact with technologies in other
IETF working groups or external organizations, and would it therefore benefit
from their review? Have those reviews occurred? If yes, describe which
reviews took place.
This document is closely related to draft-ietf-tls-tls12-frozen in TLS WG.
The two document were discussed together, inparticular the chairs of UTA and
TLS WGs issued the Working Group Last Calls at the same time with
cross-announcements.
6. Describe how the document meets any required formal expert review criteria,
such as the MIB Doctor, YANG Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews.
Not applicable.
7. If the document contains a YANG module, has the final version of the module
been checked with any of the recommended validation tools for syntax and
formatting validation? If there are any resulting errors or warnings, what is
the justification for not fixing them at this time? Does the YANG module
comply with the Network Management Datastore Architecture (NMDA) as specified
in RFC 8342?
The document does not contain YANG modules.
8. Describe reviews and automated checks performed to validate sections of the
final version of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code,
BNF rules, MIB definitions, CBOR's CDDL, etc.
Not applicable.
Document Shepherd Checks
9. Based on the shepherd's review of the document, is it their opinion that this
document is needed, clearly written, complete, correctly designed, and ready
to be handed off to the responsible Area Director?
The document is complete and clear, it is ready for AD review.
10. Several IETF Areas have assembled lists of common issues that their
reviewers encounter. For which areas have such issues been identified
and addressed? For which does this still need to happen in subsequent
reviews?
No early directorate reviwes were performed.
11. What type of RFC publication is being requested on the IETF stream (Best
Current Practice, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard,
Informational, Experimental or Historic)? Why is this the proper type
of RFC? Do all Datatracker state attributes correctly reflect this intent?
Best Current Practice as indictaed in the document and in the datatracker.
12. Have reasonable efforts been made to remind all authors of the intellectual
property rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79? To
the best of your knowledge, have all required disclosures been filed? If
not, explain why. If yes, summarize any relevant discussion, including links
to publicly-available messages when applicable.
Yes.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uta/51-tGzR3qMS2nQTP0G3FzOdboIc/https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uta/9uBDl8lQnysti5agLA2YRJLzy20/
13. Has each author, editor, and contributor shown their willingness to be
listed as such? If the total number of authors and editors on the front page
is greater than five, please provide a justification.
Yes.
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uta/51-tGzR3qMS2nQTP0G3FzOdboIc/https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/uta/9uBDl8lQnysti5agLA2YRJLzy20/
14. Document any remaining I-D nits in this document. Simply running the idnits
tool is not enough; please review the "Content Guidelines" on
authors.ietf.org. (Also note that the current idnits tool generates
some incorrect warnings; a rewrite is underway.)
idnits complains about 1 line with non-ascii characters.
idnits also indicates that normatively referencing RFC5246 is an error
(since RFC8446 obsoleted it). Since this document discusses
TLS 1.2 problems, it seems to me that reference to RFC 5246 should
be normative.
15. Should any informative references be normative or vice-versa? See the IESG
Statement on Normative and Informative References.
In my opinion references are correctly splitted, but see above about RFC5246.
16. List any normative references that are not freely available to anyone. Did
the community have sufficient access to review any such normative
references?
All normative references are freely available.
17. Are there any normative downward references (see RFC 3967 and BCP
97) that are not already listed in the DOWNREF registry? If so,
list them.
The document normatively references draft-ietf-tls-tls12-frozen, which has an
intended status "Informational" and is not listed in the DOWNREF registry. I
think, this reference is justified, since the drafts are related and
draft-ietf-tls-tls12-frozen caused the existence of this document. In addition,
one normative reference is to the obsoleted RFC (to RFC 5246).
18. Are there normative references to documents that are not ready to be
submitted to the IESG for publication or are otherwise in an unclear state?
If so, what is the plan for their completion?
No.
19. Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? If
so, does the Datatracker metadata correctly reflect this and are those RFCs
listed on the title page, in the abstract, and discussed in the
introduction? If not, explain why and point to the part of the document
where the relationship of this document to these other RFCs is discussed.
This document updates RFC9325. This is listed in the title page, abstract
and is mentioned in the introduction.
20. Describe the document shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section,
especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document.
Confirm that all aspects of the document requiring IANA assignments are
associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm
that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm
that each newly created IANA registry specifies its initial contents,
allocations procedures, and a reasonable name (see RFC 8126).
The document does not contain IANA considerations.
21. List any new IANA registries that require Designated Expert Review for
future allocations. Are the instructions to the Designated Expert clear?
Please include suggestions of designated experts, if appropriate.
The document does not request any IANA actions.