Re: [Tls-reg-review] Adopting tls-flags
Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com> Tue, 20 April 2021 14:52 UTC
Return-Path: <sean@sn3rd.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 CF9273A26E9 for <tls-reg-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Apr 2021 07:52:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=sn3rd.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 P7iSqSqo7TyC for <tls-reg-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 20 Apr 2021 07:52:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qv1-xf36.google.com (mail-qv1-xf36.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::f36]) (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 F09853A26E6 for <tls-reg-review@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Apr 2021 07:52:51 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qv1-xf36.google.com with SMTP id i9so18506210qvo.3 for <tls-reg-review@ietf.org>; Tue, 20 Apr 2021 07:52:51 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=sn3rd.com; s=google; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=7XGkbzuEplGyN3JU3ebSw4FwYX5j5x+JhQMIjHqIVWM=; b=iwW1rRnFoYxktA6Ta1ktKJQUIwL/GbOKQzGuwAAz7Wb3njnMRJJlQfT7mPgK21RgEA NJIEK7lZPa7UqClp68w8WZvBQcUEYHgf+Szu91WGJRQcFw0HcRURrQ9wMlJRSZ7cLxhD pIglconteAPKglzBPRr0sdcEOBAVfXXxVgswc=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=7XGkbzuEplGyN3JU3ebSw4FwYX5j5x+JhQMIjHqIVWM=; b=VpwG761SEITCiWBc77vAT7uilZiBfdcHOF2Sk/uaTewC4KxVMhV77Mew+lrm2F+Mar kJkNSROeQT9UTOqxR8wyB1sqCNxpE9hEF14kkTTGfc8jk9slqBD5ILYvcSbZS0bCsSzT JbB7AIt43k4JeKuIscMkF6USEH/0HPJ4Heqkg9hc6WJ0sXdwkKMrkZ4IfITYPaCqmdaM djRSrVdbRb7rdO3r5g6WxydomL9Ljo1tvz9APQ7nUR11PdgSgqulRxPqEsgj2/fb5K8y HCBAXijmgFoQC5joaXsF8fHlaPxY325prfSHOHBgms0zJZIMP9tvgEclCa4PlncWiwox bwCQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5328iKArWUWD+9lWvrv/ojjv05ARbrhno56LarDbl1ApOwPDPz9s Gah4iiNjbVe32aGgBvpGymxfMw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJygwh4VoAAzwrPUEfGgDUOEvev7PrSYoUxpnqps+Kvx0ju29RXr0Hfb+noD6bzcBkc3LEyvMA==
X-Received: by 2002:a0c:9e0f:: with SMTP id p15mr26996415qve.27.1618930370221; Tue, 20 Apr 2021 07:52:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.152] (pool-71-178-177-131.washdc.fios.verizon.net. [71.178.177.131]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e15sm233994qkm.129.2021.04.20.07.52.49 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 20 Apr 2021 07:52:49 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 14.0 \(3654.60.0.2.21\))
From: Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com>
In-Reply-To: <e8c96ac1-b9cc-4aa2-8d35-bba149dffed7@www.fastmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2021 10:52:48 -0400
Cc: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>, Chris Wood <caw@heapingbits.net>, TLS DEs <tls-reg-review@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-tls-cross-sni-resumption@ietf.org, TLS Chairs <tls-chairs@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <44C284C4-163C-431D-91B4-ED60AE2B5C40@sn3rd.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>
To: Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>, Victor Vasiliev <vasilvv@google.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3654.60.0.2.21)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls-reg-review/B3-f2W7hR-d22bTy4PfypMYxD-0>
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: Tue, 20 Apr 2021 14:52:58 -0000
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> 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> 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> 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> 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 >>>>>>>> tls-reg-review@ietf.org >>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls-reg-review >>>>>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>>> tls-reg-review mailing list >>>>>>> tls-reg-review@ietf.org >>>>>>> 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