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

[Yoav Nir <[e-mail]>]

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
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>> 
>