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

[Christopher Wood <[e-mail]>]

>From the side lines: thanks, all!

On Thu, May 13, 2021, at 10:36 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
> Looks good.  I’ve added this to my working copy.  Let me know when you 
> upload yours, and I’ll upload mine.
> 
> https://github.com/tlswg/tls-flags/blob/master/draft-ietf-tls-tlsflags.xml
> 
> Yoav
> 
> > On 12 May 2021, at 20:30, Victor Vasiliev <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > 
> > Sorry, I was on a sick leave for most of April, and this fell through the cracks.
> > 
> > I updated the editor's copy of the draft: <https://vasilvv.github.io/tls-cross-sni-resumption/draft-ietf-tls-cross-sni-resumption.html>.  Please take a look at it; if you're okay with the wording I am using, I'll upload this to the datatracker.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> >   Victor.
> > 
> > On Sun, May 9, 2021 at 4:17 PM Yoav Nir <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >> 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
> >> >>>>>>>> 
> >> >>>>>>> 
> >> >>>>> 
> >> >>>> 
> >> >> 
> >> > 
> >> 
>