IETF conflict review for draft-hartmann-default-port-for-irc-via-tls-ssl
conflict-review-hartmann-default-port-for-irc-via-tls-ssl-00

The following approval message was sent
From: The IESG
To: "Nevil Brownlee" , draft-hartmann-default-port-for-irc-via-tls-ssl@tools.ietf.org
Cc: The IESG , , 
Subject: Results of IETF-conflict review for draft-hartmann-default-port-for-irc-via-tls-ssl-09

The IESG has completed a review of
draft-hartmann-default-port-for-irc-via-tls-ssl-09 consistent with
RFC5742.


The IESG has no problem with the publication of 'Default Port for IRC via
TLS/SSL'  as an
Informational RFC.



The IESG has concluded that there is no conflict between this document
and IETF work.



The IESG would also like the RFC-Editor to review the comments in the
datatracker related to this document and determine whether or not they
merit incorporation into the document. Comments may exist in both the
ballot and the history log.

The IESG review is documented at:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/conflict-review-hartmann-default-port-for-irc-via-tls-ssl/

A URL of the reviewed Internet Draft is:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-hartmann-default-port-for-irc-via-tls-ssl/

The process for such documents is described at
http://www.rfc-editor.org/indsubs.html

Thank you,

The IESG Secretary

[Ballot discuss]

Just taking over Robert's DISCUSS position to get it fixed.

This document currently claims to Update RFCs 2812 and 2813, which are IETF
stream documents that went through a Last Call. It's not clear it actually
does, and that these are meant as "see also". If that's right, I suggest we ask
these be removed. If that's not right, and these actually do update those RFCs,
we should discuss whether this document is in the correct stream.

[Ballot comment]
I agree with Robert's Discuss.

I also have concerns about giving this document any status with the port number included until it has been through port number review by the designated experts since this may precipitate a collision in the wild.

[Ballot discuss]
This document currently claims to Update RFCs 2812 and 2813, which are IETF stream documents that went through a Last Call. It's not clear it actually does, and that these are meant as "see also". If that's right, I suggest we ask these be removed. If that's not right, and these actually do update those RFCs, we should discuss whether this document is in the correct stream.

[Ballot comment]
Note that if this document had come through the IETF stream I probably would have asked for a bit more information about the certificates:

s2.3.1/2: why only common name what about putting the FQDN/nick in the subject alt extension?

s2.3.1/2: when you say should verify that the certificate validates back to an installed Trust Anchor as in [RFC5280]?

s2.3.2: Should the server also verify the client's cert?

WRT to naming matching should RFC 6125 be followed?

The draft draft-hartmann-default-port-for-irc-via-tls-ssl-08
is ready for publication from the Independent Stream.
Please ask IESG to review it, as set out in RFC 5742.

The following is some background for this draft, please forward it
to IESG along with this request ...

This draft "describes the commonly accepted practice of listening
on TCP port 6697 for incoming IRC connections encrypted via
TLS/SSL."

It has IANA Considerations; it requests TCP port 6697 for
Internet Relay Chat via TLS/SSL. The author has discussed
this with Pearly Liang.

It was reviewed by James Schaad and Mykyta Yevstifeyev.