Prohibiting Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) Version 2.0
draft-ietf-tls-ssl2-must-not-04

[Ballot comment]
however, this
  version does not provide the expected level of security.

I think it provided exactly the "expected" level of security.
Maybe you mean "does not provide a sufficiently high level of
security."

[Ballot discuss]
Such a tiny, but perfectly formed draft.

A quick point for discussion (added here simply to demonstrate that I don't understand the field)...

  it requires TLS clients and servers never negotiate
  the use of SSL version 2.0

Suppose I have a legacy client that supports only SSL2 or nothing.
Does this document require that a serve should prefer no security
over the use of SSL2?

State changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested.

The following Last Call Announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Last Call:  (Prohibiting SSL Version 2.0) to Proposed Standard


The IESG has received a request from the Transport Layer Security WG
(tls) to consider the following document:
- 'Prohibiting SSL Version 2.0'
  as a Proposed Standard

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2010-12-15. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-ssl2-must-not/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-ssl2-must-not/

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

The Shepherd for this document is Joe Salowey. This document is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication.

(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?

This document received review from key WG members.

(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
AAA, internationalization, or XML?

There are no concerns.

(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he
or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
this issue.

There are no concerns.

No IPR disclosure has been submitted.

(1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
agree with it?

The WG consensus is solid. There were 6 (8 if you include the authors) emails supporting publication. There were none opposed to progressing the document.

(1.f) 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
entered into the ID Tracker.)

There has been no threat of appeal.

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See
http://www.ietf.org/ID-Checklist.html and
http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/.) Boilerplate checks are
not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews? If the document
does not already indicate its intended status at the top of
the first page, please indicate the intended status here.

The Shepherd has verified that the document satisfies all ID nits.

(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative? Are there normative references to documents that
are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
state? If such normative references exist, what is the
strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

The document splits its references into normative and informative.
There are no normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state.
There are no normative references that are downward references.

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document's IANA
Considerations section exists and is consistent with the body
of the document? If the document specifies protocol
extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
the document creates a new registry, does it define the
proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC2434]. If the
document describes an Expert Review process, has the Document
Shepherd conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that
the IESG can appoint the needed Expert during IESG Evaluation?

The Shepherd has verified that the document's IANA Considerations section exists and is consistent with the body of the document. Note there are none.

(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
an automated checker?

There is no formal language in this draft.

(1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the
"Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary
Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
or introduction.

This document requires that when TLS clients and servers establish connections that they never negotiate the use of Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) version 2.0.

Working Group Summary
Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting?
For example, was there controversy about particular points
or were there decisions where the consensus was
particularly rough?

The draft was discussed on TLS WG mailing list and presented to the TLS WG at IETF 78. Initially, the draft (draft-turner-ssl-must-not) contained text that prohibited SSL 2.0 and 3.0 and provided guidance to use TLS 1.2. Based on SSL server implementation statistics provided by WG members (there's lots of SSL 3.0 implementations) and discussions that SSL 3.0 with its mixed SHA-1/MD5 KDF is still acceptable, the scope of the draft was significantly reduced to only prohibit negotiation of SSL 2.0.

Document Quality
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review,
what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
Review, on what date was the request posted?

SSL 2.0 has in fact already been removed from many implementations. The intent here is to formalize the retirement of SSL 2.0.

Most of the changes were based on reviews from Paul Hoffman, Simon Josefsson, Marsh Ray, and Martin Rex. Other reviewers are noted in the acknowledgments section.

Personnel
Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Who is the
Responsible Area Director? If the document requires IANA
experts(s), insert 'The IANA Expert(s) for the registries
in this document are .'

The document shepherd for this document is Joe Salowey .
The responsible Area Director is Alexey Melnikov .