[Tls-reg-review] [IANA #1158450] spelling change request in TLS Certificate Types registry

"Amanda Baber via RT" <iana-matrix@iana.org> Mon, 16 December 2019 22:55 UTC

Return-Path: <iana-shared@icann.org>
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 44D4712094A; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 14:55:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.95
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.95 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 RQQCqMNhYMuS; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 14:55:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp01.icann.org (smtp01.icann.org [192.0.33.81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 52B2F120946; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 14:55:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from request4.lax.icann.org (request1.lax.icann.org [10.32.11.221]) by smtp01.icann.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29302E0B4B; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 22:55:56 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by request4.lax.icann.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 2891220559; Mon, 16 Dec 2019 22:55:56 +0000 (UTC)
RT-Owner: amanda.baber
From: "Amanda Baber via RT" <iana-matrix@iana.org>
Reply-To: iana-matrix@iana.org
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJLJYGnOKfK2JFg7t+b4NBkCX7irBgCYFyyDzZ9bbLZgOw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <RT-Ticket-1158450@icann.org> <20191214014601.GM81833@kduck.mit.edu> <CALaySJLJYGnOKfK2JFg7t+b4NBkCX7irBgCYFyyDzZ9bbLZgOw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <rt-4.4.3-24012-1576536955-1590.1158450-37-0@icann.org>
X-RT-Loop-Prevention: IANA
X-RT-Ticket: IANA #1158450
X-Managed-BY: RT 4.4.3 (http://www.bestpractical.com/rt/)
X-RT-Originator: amanda.baber@icann.org
To: barryleiba@computer.org, kaduk@mit.edu, rsalz@akamai.com
CC: tls-reg-review@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org, ekr@rtfm.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
X-RT-Original-Encoding: utf-8
Precedence: bulk
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 22:55:56 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls-reg-review/8YJQhold-Qvavxu-zc_JMtY7Cp4>
Subject: [Tls-reg-review] [IANA #1158450] spelling change request in TLS Certificate Types registry
X-BeenThere: tls-reg-review@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 22:55:58 -0000

Hi,

Should we wait to make the change until there's an errata report to refer to, or should we make the change now and refer to 8446?

thanks,
Amanda

On Sat Dec 14 14:48:53 2019, barryleiba@computer.org wrote:
> No-brainer here, yes.  Process-wise, for completeness, I think we
> should consider this to be an erratum in 8446, in that it neglected to
> include an IANA action for this.  I think it makes sense to submit an
> errata report to add it, mark that report as "verified", and ask IANA
> to make the change.
> 
> Barry
> 
> On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 8:46 PM Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> wrote:
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> > RFC 8446 deliberately changed the spelling for the TLS Certificate
> > type
> > assigned value 0 (listed at
> > https://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-extensiontype-values/tls-
> > extensiontype-values.xhtml#tls-extensiontype-values-3),
> > from "X.509" to "X509" (no dot).  This was done to improve the
> > compatibility of the protocol description language with automated
> > processing tools.  Since the name is not a protocol constant and
> > merely a
> > descriptive mnemonic, I propose that we update the name listed in the
> > registry accordingly.  Adding [RFC8446] as a reference at the same
> > time
> > also seems plausible.  Comments welcome!
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Ben
> >