Using OpenPGP Keys for Transport Layer Security (TLS) Authentication
draft-mavrogiannopoulos-rfc5081bis-09

[Ballot comment]
I support Adrian's discuss position; the document should clearly state that it defines a new cert_type and
the associated processing rules, rather than define a new extension.

As to Alexey's discuss, I do not believe reuse of the previously assigned experimental type is justified.  We have
far more values available than we should ever use, so the interoperability concerns should trump any other issues.
This specification should request a new value.

[Ballot discuss]
If this document proceeds as Informational, the text should be significantly adjusted to reflect reporting on an existing implementation. If the intent is to standardize this and encourage other implementations, why is it on this track?

[Ballot discuss]
This is a relatively minor issue and I am happy for it to be addressed using an RFC Editor note:

I am slightly confused. If this extension is not backward compatible, why is it actually Ok to reuse the extension type 9 from ?

[Ballot discuss]
This is a relatively minor issue and I am happy for it to be addressed using an RFC Editor note:

The IANA consideration section doesn't say that the extension type 9 in  needs to be updated to point to this document.

Also, I am slightly confused. If this extension is not backward compatible, is it actually Ok to reuse the extension type?

[Ballot discuss]
This is a Discuss-Discuss. That is, no action is currently required from the authors, but I want to discuss this issue with the sponsoring AD and the rest of the IESG.

I'm a little confused :-(
Probably a result of re-using text from RFC 5081, but does this
document "propose extensions" [see Abstract], "define extensions"
[see Introduction : would be consistent with PS], "replace RFC 5081
with some important modifications that are not backward-compatible"
[would be consistent with Experimental], or "document extensions used
in a particular implementation" [as described in the shepherd write-up : consistent with Informational]?

The shepherd write-up indicates a "previous last call", is that refering to RFC 5081's last call?

[Ballot discuss]
This is a Discuss-Discuss. That is, no action is currently required from the authors, but I want to discuss this issue with the sponsoring AD and the rest of the IESG.

I'm a little confused :-(
Probably a result of re-using text from RFC 5081, but does this
document "propose extensions" [see Abstract], "define extensions"
[see Introduction : would be consistent with PS], "replace RFC 5081
with some important modifications that are not backward-compatible"
[would be consistent with Experimental], or "document extensions used
in a particular implementation" [consistent with Informational]?

Upon approval of this document, IANA will perform the following actions:

ACTION 1:

Make the following change in the ExtensionType Values registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-extensiontype-values

OLD:

9 cert_type [RFC5081]

NEW:

9 cert_type [RFC-mavrogiannopoulos-rfc5081bis-05]


ACTION 2:

Make the follwing changes in the TLS Certificate Types registry at
http://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-extensiontype-values

OLD:

Reference
[RFC5081]
Registration Procedures
IETF Consensus

Value Description Reference
0 X.509 [RFC5081]
1 OpenPGP [RFC5081]
2-223 Unassigned
224-255 Reserved for Private Use [RFC5081]

NEW:

Reference
[RFC-mavrogiannopoulos-rfc5081bis-05]
Registration Procedures
RFC Required

Value Description Reference
0 X.509 [RFC-mavrogiannopoulos-rfc5081bis-05]
1 OpenPGP [RFC-mavrogiannopoulos-rfc5081bis-05]
2-223 Unassigned
224-255 Reserved for Private Use [RFC-mavrogiannopoulos-rfc5081bis-05]

We understand the above to be the only actions required by this document.

(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?

Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos  is the document Shepherd.

(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?

The document has already passed review as independent submission
and was for long time in the rfc editor queue for publication. It was
not published because of technical reasons (updating a WG document by
an independent submission is not possible), thus resubmission as an
individual submission was necessary. During the previous last calls it
received review from WG and independent reviewers.

(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?

No.

(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.

No.

(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?

I'd classify it as: "it represent the strong concurrence of a few
individuals, with others being silent", from previous last calls and
discussions in the mailing list.

(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.)

None that I'm aware of.

(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.

Yes.

(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].

Yes. There are no references to draft documents.

(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?

Yes.

(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?

N/A.

(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


This memo proposes extensions to the Transport Layer Security (TLS)
protocol to support the OpenPGP key format. The extensions discussed
here include a certificate type negotiation mechanism, and the
required modifications to the TLS Handshake Protocol. This memo
replaces the Experimental [RFC5081]

Working Group Summary

This is not the product of a WG.

Document Quality

To my knowledge this protocol is implemented by gnutls
(www.gnutls.org). Both the client and the server side are implemented.
It was reviewed by the WG and independent reviewers
during the previous last call (those reviews went to rfc editor and
me, thus I don't know if they are now accessible to reference).

Personnel

Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos  is the document Shepherd.
Sean Turner is the sponsoring Area Director.

IESG,

This document was submitted to the RFC Editor to be published as an
Informational Independent Submission:
draft-mavrogiannopoulos-rfc5081bis-03.txt.

NOTE: The author intends for this document to obsolete RFC 5081. RFC
5081 is an Experimental RFC produced by the Transport Layer Security
working group. So, the document would be changing streams as well as
status (i.e., IETF stream --> Independent stream and Experimental -->
Informational).

Please let us know if this document conflicts with the IETF standards
process or other work being done in the IETF community.

Five week timeout expires on 16 December 2009.
Please note that we have included an additional week because of the
current IETF proceedings.


Using OpenPGP Keys for Transport Layer Security (TLS) Authentication

This memo proposes extensions to the Transport Layer Security (TLS)
protocol to support the OpenPGP key format. The extensions
discussed here include a certificate type negotiation mechanism,
and the required modifications to the TLS Handshake Protocol. This
memo replaces the Experimental [RFC5081].