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

[Yoav Nir <[e-mail]>]

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
>>> 
>>