Re: [Tls-reg-review] Adopting tls-flags

[Victor Vasiliev <[e-mail]>]

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>.
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 <[e-mail]> wrote:

> Victor?
>
> > On 20 Apr 2021, at 22:53, Yoav Nir <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]> 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 <[e-mail]>
> 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 <[e-mail]>
> 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 <[e-mail]> 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 <
> [e-mail]> 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)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> (sorry for late response, just noticed the part about the
> draft  submission deadline)
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> No problem!
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Best,
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Chris
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>>> tls-reg-review mailing list
> >>>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
> >>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls-reg-review
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>> tls-reg-review mailing list
> >>>>>>>>> [e-mail]
> >>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls-reg-review
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >
>
>