Re: [Tls-reg-review] Adopting tls-flags
Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com> Fri, 14 May 2021 10:28 UTC
Return-Path: <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: tls-reg-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls-reg-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2395C3A2DB0; Fri, 14 May 2021 03:28:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MhKxpRC2oqmk; Fri, 14 May 2021 03:28:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wm1-x32a.google.com (mail-wm1-x32a.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::32a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E70F63A2DAF; Fri, 14 May 2021 03:28:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wm1-x32a.google.com with SMTP id 82-20020a1c01550000b0290142562ff7c9so1211306wmb.3; Fri, 14 May 2021 03:28:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=kCHYpdfX2da2hX3gUoP2FDwnRWUYKvtUMfP3kfJVjLI=; b=mLDZmXQDo1MeBfFPw2DersKYMfe+5nDZwVElfZBhin4WqI7tGXmRNZpsxiW/xtoNKQ bM0jbCT1MyzuN7LjUgl7SkrFU6yHPEAgN93Kp8lbvX+n6bLzA7B1iD5HH32e78CVndX4 G8YuZ9gZpRRbgRqL9Ey2+yQnzf9LoAACvxDBCbsr0Zcxgo/ACM+kwsoXPa/TgtxA5R9H jk67eURZEAntnRBTIj7wEd5EQpNCWBZT54y+E6OV1MoO2PNfhT/RcfAC67at/fFPYlHR GxGC8texctps6CyCcchh+lVdrQmbZQ40NoEuJ1kFVU0zZ/l+hQoqES+CehH0SVdhhvYN RdGQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=kCHYpdfX2da2hX3gUoP2FDwnRWUYKvtUMfP3kfJVjLI=; b=Ug8qu0zqyqQqlXLuxes1b00r4gIJM1o0Wp+Q8/6DGZ6fBdyyphxWoYXBQ4TTtuTokR b0il0egItNXO8J7G39IODCm7wYi+J3BxBeW2oV7Nnbr4H72HxLUwXT2qkfKw8z5wIfoe 5y/tfc9x0T1zI8Q4db6om7rGkpdGyc06MUm8GgydBW+WeGfZtpOyAehfOQnKxR2fhHLS weHkQniQ7k+xNtpeBhSeoe5hwt0J0iQyS9AP4EoF2dZQy3IT4doW/NwB4hXu492l4kdQ KHoncNoBYO0v6Nq0tGS+gKH5M84rNfzOcQwCcM3BGUd/2w9DIWQ2TFewITz8QAMH2bJE QvkA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531oyYqIZcYn6LEjPP8M1CnzQ/pWWI7CKppmN7zGS4erTNxEVtc0 NTC0Ve+HziMS6WiR4u0ISVE=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxB1xSckSesHSZWbfY7s9e+t78rB77QSgxgozU8wJnzB74KMQBX5i1GI9aklSl6it02Q7jMBA==
X-Received: by 2002:a1c:cc0b:: with SMTP id h11mr8829583wmb.87.1620988084154; Fri, 14 May 2021 03:28:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtpclient.apple ([46.120.57.183]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id j10sm6084000wrt.32.2021.05.14.03.28.02 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 14 May 2021 03:28:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <0A0AC665-3B92-4C12-8A49-4A15314F68DC@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_5BF569FD-C0C1-4884-993B-AF80238588B0"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.80.0.2.43\))
Date: Fri, 14 May 2021 13:28:01 +0300
In-Reply-To: <CAAZdMadmf9eXJgwmO5m+5Q8Q0=xrEQB9127Vnbf47zrhb9Ej_g@mail.gmail.com>
Cc: Christopher Wood <caw@heapingbits.net>, Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com>, Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>, "tls-reg-review@ietf.org" <tls-reg-review@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-tls-cross-sni-resumption@ietf.org, TLS Chairs <tls-chairs@ietf.org>
To: Victor Vasiliev <vasilvv@google.com>
References: <CAAZdMadAGa=X5+ktAUjr-=fvxrpQwRfERHbpR4+6KfXeiWxAGw@mail.gmail.com> <7fb3a536-6716-4f55-82ed-2c4b96669166@www.fastmail.com> <b1a39bbf-23b8-472c-9565-20479ee7b262@www.fastmail.com> <CAAZdMad7A3fJG9GyNrXgSnsnC-wHN5_V4wpaOqWwAtUGzWtbsw@mail.gmail.com> <1f78ab86-8e27-4d8a-b670-b1a5d6432eb0@www.fastmail.com> <20210319203859.GF79563@kduck.mit.edu> <E37616E0-5199-4258-BCAB-DFF9B3C5C14C@gmail.com> <3c7eeed5-a559-4f12-a2a6-19b7cc41c2e7@www.fastmail.com> <a91a607d-ae01-46ac-bea8-2f78a5200665@www.fastmail.com> <FA2A69DB-2AA1-4605-971A-A76B8177EF1E@gmail.com> <20210330143102.GZ79563@kduck.mit.edu> <e8c96ac1-b9cc-4aa2-8d35-bba149dffed7@www.fastmail.com> <44C284C4-163C-431D-91B4-ED60AE2B5C40@sn3rd.com> <ECACEC20-871B-4333-8D1F-08A44C34599E@gmail.com> <45C3C6E4-B209-4512-A41C-A93CDFAB8ACD@gmail.com> <CAAZdMad6LB5L+sr3qfUvhUONhY0OCeYQSSdUsmEsr+WTtX_JZA@mail.gmail.com> <6CE066ED-5AC8-4896-9589-7D1383197A56@gmail.com> <e2395168-083c-4431-af6c-002c676344b1@www.fastmail.com> <CAAZdMadmf9eXJgwmO5m+5Q8Q0=xrEQB9127Vnbf47zrhb9Ej_g@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.80.0.2.43)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls-reg-review/0neWcE068H0EVtJHijYrKX2QiY0>
Subject: Re: [Tls-reg-review] Adopting tls-flags
X-BeenThere: tls-reg-review@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: TLS REVIEW <tls-reg-review.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tls-reg-review>, <mailto:tls-reg-review-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tls-reg-review/>
List-Post: <mailto:tls-reg-review@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-reg-review-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls-reg-review>, <mailto:tls-reg-review-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 14 May 2021 10:28:16 -0000
And I submitted mine. > On 14 May 2021, at 7:01, Victor Vasiliev <vasilvv@google.com> wrote: > > Submitted mine to the datatracker. > > On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 2:00 PM Christopher Wood <caw@heapingbits.net <mailto:caw@heapingbits.net>> wrote: > From the side lines: thanks, all! > > On Thu, May 13, 2021, at 10:36 AM, Yoav Nir wrote: > > Looks good. I’ve added this to my working copy. Let me know when you > > upload yours, and I’ll upload mine. > > > > https://github.com/tlswg/tls-flags/blob/master/draft-ietf-tls-tlsflags.xml <https://github.com/tlswg/tls-flags/blob/master/draft-ietf-tls-tlsflags.xml> > > > > Yoav > > > > > On 12 May 2021, at 20:30, Victor Vasiliev <vasilvv@google.com <mailto:vasilvv@google.com>> wrote: > > > > > > Sorry, I was on a sick leave for most of April, and this fell through the cracks. > > > > > > I updated the editor's copy of the draft: <https://vasilvv.github.io/tls-cross-sni-resumption/draft-ietf-tls-cross-sni-resumption.html <https://vasilvv.github.io/tls-cross-sni-resumption/draft-ietf-tls-cross-sni-resumption.html>>. Please take a look at it; if you're okay with the wording I am using, I'll upload this to the datatracker. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Victor. > > > > > > On Sun, May 9, 2021 at 4:17 PM Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com <mailto:ynir.ietf@gmail.com>> wrote: > > >> Victor? > > >> > > >> > On 20 Apr 2021, at 22:53, Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com <mailto:ynir.ietf@gmail.com>> wrote: > > >> > > > >> > We haven’t. Mea culpa > > >> > > > >> > Victor: How about you make your document say that the number 8 has been assigned from the TLS Flags IANA registry. I will update the tls-flags document to have an initial content of the registry with just this 8 value. > > >> > > > >> > Of course section 3 of the cross-sni-resumption would have to be changed to reflect that it uses a flag and not a new extension. My suggestion for the content of the IANA considerations section should be something like: > > >> > > > >> > IANA has assigned a flag from the TLS Flags registry with the following: > > >> > * Value: 8 > > >> > * Name: resumption_across_names > > >> > * Message: NST > > >> > * Recommended: N > > >> > * Reference: This document > > >> > > > >> > Is this acceptable? > > >> > > > >> > Yoav > > >> > > > >> >> On 20 Apr 2021, at 17:52, Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com <mailto:sean@sn3rd.com>> wrote: > > >> >> > > >> >> Hi! Checking back in on this one. Have we decided what changes to make where? > > >> >> > > >> >> Cheers, > > >> >> spt > > >> >> > > >> >>> On Mar 30, 2021, at 10:32, Christopher Wood <caw@heapingbits.net <mailto:caw@heapingbits.net>> wrote: > > >> >>> > > >> >>> I totally do not feel strongly about the outcome here. I would just like to see this resolved. > > >> >>> > > >> >>> Victor, Yoav: can you please coordinate and make changes (one way or another)? > > >> >>> > > >> >>> Thanks! > > >> >>> Chris > > >> >>> > > >> >>> On Tue, Mar 30, 2021, at 7:31 AM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > > >> >>>> I am also unsure what was requested of whom ... I think my proposal was > > >> >>>> that the cross_sni_resumption value would be listed in the tlsflags draft > > >> >>>> and also used in the cross-sni-resumption draft, and we can work out the > > >> >>>> details based on which one is published first. > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> -Ben > > >> >>>> > > >> >>>> On Tue, Mar 30, 2021 at 04:26:18PM +0300, Yoav Nir wrote: > > >> >>>>> Are you waiting for Ben to clarify the suggestion or for me to say if it will work? > > >> >>>>> > > >> >>>>> It works for me either way. > > >> >>>>> > > >> >>>>>> On 30 Mar 2021, at 16:15, Christopher Wood <caw@heapingbits.net <mailto:caw@heapingbits.net>> wrote: > > >> >>>>>> > > >> >>>>>> Bump! > > >> >>>>>> > > >> >>>>>> On Mon, Mar 22, 2021, at 7:04 AM, Christopher Wood wrote: > > >> >>>>>>> On Sat, Mar 20, 2021, at 9:57 PM, Yoav Nir wrote: > > >> >>>>>>>> You mean add the cross_sni_resumption value to the tlsflags draft? > > >> >>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>> I don't think that was the suggestion. I understand the proposal to be: > > >> >>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>> 1. tls-flags owns the registry and its initial contents, and it's > > >> >>>>>>> initially empty empty. > > >> >>>>>>> 2. cross-sni-resumption defines the first registry value for tls-flags, > > >> >>>>>>> with value 8. > > >> >>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>> Did I misunderstand? If not, would that work? > > >> >>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>> Best, > > >> >>>>>>> Chris > > >> >>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> Sure. We can do that, if we’re sure that the cross-sni-resumption draft > > >> >>>>>>>> is getting approved in this form. I don’t think there has been a WGLC > > >> >>>>>>>> for it yet. > > >> >>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> Also, section 4.1 of the TLSFLAGS draft has this advice: > > >> >>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> 4.1. Guidance for IANA Experts > > >> >>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> This extension allows up to 2040 flags. However, they are not all > > >> >>>>>>>> the same, because the length of the extension is determined by the > > >> >>>>>>>> highest set bit. > > >> >>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> We would like to allocate the flags in such a way that the typical > > >> >>>>>>>> extension is as short as possible. The scenario we want to guard > > >> >>>>>>>> against is that in a few years some extension is defined that all > > >> >>>>>>>> implementations need to support and that is assigned a high number > > >> >>>>>>>> because all of the lower numbers have already been allocated. An > > >> >>>>>>>> example of such an extension is the Renegotiation Indication > > >> >>>>>>>> Extension defined in [RFC5746]. > > >> >>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> For this reason, the IANA experts should allocate the flags as > > >> >>>>>>>> follows: > > >> >>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> o Flags 0-7 are reserved for documents coming out of the TLS working > > >> >>>>>>>> group with a specific request to assign a low number. > > >> >>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> o Flags 8-31 are for standards-track documents that the experts > > >> >>>>>>>> believe will see wide adoption among either all users of TLS or a > > >> >>>>>>>> significant group of TLS users. For example, an extension that > > >> >>>>>>>> will be used by all web clients or all smart objects. > > >> >>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> o Flags 32-63 are for other documents, including experimental, that > > >> >>>>>>>> are likely to see significant adoption. > > >> >>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> o Flags 64-79 are not to be allocated. They are for reserved for > > >> >>>>>>>> private use. > > >> >>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> o Flags 80-2039 can be used for temporary allocation in experiments, > > >> >>>>>>>> for flags that are likely to see use only in very specific > > >> >>>>>>>> environments, for national and corporate extensions, and as > > >> >>>>>>>> overflow, in case one of the previous categories has been > > >> >>>>>>>> exhausted. > > >> >>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> So IMO this is more fitting to receive the number 8 rather than the > > >> >>>>>>>> number 1. That is, unless the WG wants to make the case that this flag > > >> >>>>>>>> extension is going to be present in most ClientHello messages from now > > >> >>>>>>>> on. > > >> >>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>> Yoav > > >> >>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>> On 19 Mar 2021, at 22:38, Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu <mailto:kaduk@mit.edu>> wrote: > > >> >>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>> The draft that creates the registry owns the initial registry contents > > >> >>>>>>>>> until the registry itself is created. > > >> >>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>> So, just put the value in the draft's source, and try to avoid re-using a > > >> >>>>>>>>> number for different things during the draft's time as a draft. > > >> >>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>> -Ben > > >> >>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>> On Fri, Mar 19, 2021 at 01:26:10PM -0700, Christopher Wood wrote: > > >> >>>>>>>>>> + tls-reg-review > > >> >>>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> Good question! Since this is a new registry, I don't see any problem with grabbing 1 to populate it. The registry experts may have a better answer though. > > >> >>>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> Best, > > >> >>>>>>>>>> Chris > > >> >>>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Mar 18, 2021, at 5:06 PM, Victor Vasiliev wrote: > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> Do I actually get to just use 1, or do I need to ask you to do the > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> early allocation process? > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Mar 16, 2021 at 9:50 PM Christopher Wood <caw@heapingbits.net <mailto:caw@heapingbits.net>> wrote: > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Friendly bump! > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 1, 2021, at 7:52 AM, Christopher Wood wrote: > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Victor, > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Mar 1, 2021, at 7:39 AM, Victor Vasiliev wrote: > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Chris, > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> This makes sense. I will update the draft some time after the upcoming > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> IETF. Do you want to just add a codepoint reserved for cross-domain > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> resumption into the draft, or how does that work? > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Good question. I suspect your draft would just add, in the IANA > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> considerations section, something like this: > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ~~~ > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> This document requests that IANA create a new entry in "TLS Flags" > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> registry with the following parameters: > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - Value: 1 > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - Flag Name: "cross_sni_resumption" (or whatever you want to name it) > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - Message: NewSessionTicket > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - Recommended: Y > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> - Reference: This document > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> ~~~ > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> (See https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tls-tlsflags-04#section-4 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tls-tlsflags-04#section-4>) > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (sorry for late response, just noticed the part about the draft submission deadline) > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No problem! > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Best, > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Chris > > >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > > >> >>>>>>>>>> tls-reg-review mailing list > > >> >>>>>>>>>> tls-reg-review@ietf.org <mailto:tls-reg-review@ietf.org> > > >> >>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls-reg-review <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls-reg-review> > > >> >>>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > > >> >>>>>>>>> tls-reg-review mailing list > > >> >>>>>>>>> tls-reg-review@ietf.org <mailto:tls-reg-review@ietf.org> > > >> >>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls-reg-review <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls-reg-review> > > >> >>>>>>>> > > >> >>>>>>> > > >> >>>>> > > >> >>>> > > >> >> > > >> > > > >> > >
- Re: [Tls-reg-review] Adopting tls-flags Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [Tls-reg-review] Adopting tls-flags Christopher Wood
- Re: [Tls-reg-review] Adopting tls-flags Yoav Nir
- Re: [Tls-reg-review] Adopting tls-flags Christopher Wood
- Re: [Tls-reg-review] Adopting tls-flags Yoav Nir
- Re: [Tls-reg-review] Adopting tls-flags Christopher Wood
- Re: [Tls-reg-review] Adopting tls-flags Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [Tls-reg-review] Adopting tls-flags Christopher Wood
- Re: [Tls-reg-review] Adopting tls-flags Sean Turner
- Re: [Tls-reg-review] Adopting tls-flags Yoav Nir
- Re: [Tls-reg-review] Adopting tls-flags Yoav Nir
- Re: [Tls-reg-review] Adopting tls-flags Victor Vasiliev
- Re: [Tls-reg-review] Adopting tls-flags Yoav Nir
- Re: [Tls-reg-review] Adopting tls-flags Christopher Wood
- Re: [Tls-reg-review] Adopting tls-flags Victor Vasiliev
- Re: [Tls-reg-review] Adopting tls-flags Yoav Nir