[Tls-reg-review] [IANA #1113784] General Request for Assignment (tls-extensiontype-values)

Hi all,

We've added the following entries to the Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) Protocol IDs registry:

Protocol: HTTP/0.9
Identification Sequence: 0x68 0x74 0x74 0x70 0x2f 0x30 0x2e 0x39 ("http/0.9")
Reference: [RFC1945]

Protocol: HTTP/1.0
Identification Sequence: 0x68 0x74 0x74 0x70 0x2f 0x31 0x2e 0x30 ("http/1.0")
Reference: [RFC1945]

Please see
https://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-extensiontype-values

Best regards,

Amanda Baber
Lead IANA Services Specialist

On Mon Jun 25 22:11:36 2018, ynir.ietf@gmail.com wrote:
> Yes. I don’t think there’s any better reference.
> 
> > On 26 Jun 2018, at 0:26, Amanda Baber via RT <iana-prot-param-
> > comment@iana.org> wrote:
> >
> > Yoav and Rich,
> >
> > Can you confirm that we should list RFC 1945 as the reference?
> >
> > thanks,
> > Amanda
> >
> > On Sat Jun 23 12:28:10 2018, rsalz@akamai.com wrote:
> >> I agree it's fine.
> >>
> >> On 6/23/18, 5:26 AM, "Yoav Nir" <ynir.ietf@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi, Amanda.
> >>
> >> I haven’t seen the original email, and can’t find it in my inbox.
> >>
> >> Anyway, the assignments seem fine to me.
> >>
> >> Rich?  Nick?
> >>
> >> Yoav
> >>
> >>> On 23 Jun 2018, at 3:17, Amanda Baber via RT <iana-prot-param-
> >>> comment@iana.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Mike,
> >>>
> >>> Our understanding is that the review period for TLS requests is
> >>> three
> >>> weeks:
> >>>
> >>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates-
> >>> 05#section-18
> >>>
> >>> I can confirm that the message below was received by the mailing
> >>> list.
> >>>
> >>> Best regards,
> >>>
> >>> Amanda Baber
> >>> Lead IANA Services Specialist
> >>>
> >>> On Fri Jun 22 20:41:55 2018, mbishop@evequefou.be wrote:
> >>>> I haven't seen any follow-up e-mails regarding this.  Is there any
> >>>> other information required in order to add this registration?  For
> >>>> additional reference, https://github.com/w3c/resource-
> >>>> timing/issues/122 and
> >>>> https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=780640#c6
> >>>> are
> >>>> the issues where this gap in the registry is causing questions.
> >>>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: Amanda Baber via RT [mailto:iana-prot-param@iana.org]
> >>>> Sent: Thursday, June 14, 2018 2:33 PM
> >>>> To: Mike Bishop <mbishop@evequefou.be>
> >>>> Subject: [IANA #1113784] General Request for Assignment (tls-
> >>>> extensiontype-values_
> >>>>
> >>>> Dear Mike,
> >>>>
> >>>> Thank you for contacting us. We've sent this on to the new team of
> >>>> IESG-designated experts. The Application-Layer Protocol
> >>>> Negotiation
> >>>> (ALPN) Protocol IDs registry will be updated soon to include a
> >>>> link
> >>>> to
> >>>> recently-approved document draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates,
> >>>> which
> >>>> provides new instructions for submitting registration requests for
> >>>> some of the TLS registries. Specifically, in the future, new
> >>>> requests
> >>>> should be sent to a mailing list (rather than IANA) for a three-
> >>>> week
> >>>> review period. The experts will then contact us if they approve a
> >>>> registration.
> >>>>
> >>>> Best regards,
> >>>>
> >>>> Amanda Baber
> >>>> Lead IANA Services Specialist
> >>>>
> >>>> On Thu Jun 14 17:27:37 2018, mbishop@evequefou.be wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Contact Name:
> >>>>> Mike Bishop
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Contact Email:
> >>>>> mbishop@evequefou.be
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Type of Assignment:
> >>>>> Registration of "http/0.9" and "http/1.0" tokens (both protocols
> >>>>> are
> >>>>> defined by https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1945)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Registry:
> >>>>> Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) Protocol ID
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Description:
> >>>>> These legacy protocols are used in testing and by older server
> >>>>> implementations and these tokens are already used in certain
> >>>>> cases.
> >>>>> The W3C resource-timing specification uses the ALPN registry as a
> >>>>> reference for possible protocol values, and there has been some
> >>>>> confusion caused by the fact that these tokens aren't actually
> >>>>> registered.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It would simplify the community's life if these tokens, already
> >>>>> in
> >>>>> de
> >>>>> facto use, were actually registered and had an appropriate
> >>>>> specification reference.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Additional Info:
> >>>>> http://www.iana.org/go/rfc7301
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> 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