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

[Christopher Wood <[e-mail]>]

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
> >
>