IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Tls-reg-review] TLS ALPN registry: Request to add CoAP-over-UDP

Christian Amsüss <christian@amsuess.com> Wed, 28 February 2024 22:24 UTC

Return-Path: <christian@amsuess.com>
X-Original-To: tls-reg-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls-reg-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E238C14F604 for <tls-reg-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Feb 2024 14:24:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id USFFPO_9zT1Y for <tls-reg-review@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 Feb 2024 14:24:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.akis.at (smtp.akis.at [IPv6:2a02:b18:500:a515::f455]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 30A49C14F709 for <tls-reg-review@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 Feb 2024 14:23:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from poseidon-mailhub.amsuess.com (095129206250.cust.akis.net [95.129.206.250]) by smtp.akis.at (8.17.1/8.17.1) with ESMTPS id 41SMNEA3050164 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 28 Feb 2024 23:23:14 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from christian@amsuess.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: smtp.akis.at: Host 095129206250.cust.akis.net [95.129.206.250] claimed to be poseidon-mailhub.amsuess.com
Received: from poseidon-mailbox.amsuess.com (hermes.lan [10.13.13.254]) by poseidon-mailhub.amsuess.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E58C3458E; Wed, 28 Feb 2024 23:23:14 +0100 (CET)
Received: from hephaistos.amsuess.com (unknown [IPv6:2a02:b18:c13b:8010:e80f:997f:17f6:9706]) by poseidon-mailbox.amsuess.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 57751314C7; Wed, 28 Feb 2024 23:23:14 +0100 (CET)
Received: (nullmailer pid 17363 invoked by uid 1000); Wed, 28 Feb 2024 22:23:13 -0000
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2024 23:23:13 +0100
From: Christian Amsüss <christian@amsuess.com>
To: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
Cc: "tls-reg-review@ietf.org" <tls-reg-review@ietf.org>, IANA Protocol Parameter Requests via RT <iana-prot-param@iana.org>
Message-ID: <Zd-yUY5iv_gxogTZ@hephaistos.amsuess.com>
References: <Zd9cmwFFDXJQVKys@hephaistos.amsuess.com> <44E82B36-129F-457C-BA1B-204030B0A45B@akamai.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="cf9MkOgEJpeCljU/"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <44E82B36-129F-457C-BA1B-204030B0A45B@akamai.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls-reg-review/fB7NoIed16kAbPAjxtaRU7oC8FQ>
Subject: Re: [Tls-reg-review] TLS ALPN registry: Request to add CoAP-over-UDP
X-BeenThere: tls-reg-review@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: TLS REVIEW <tls-reg-review.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tls-reg-review>, <mailto:tls-reg-review-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tls-reg-review/>
List-Post: <mailto:tls-reg-review@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-reg-review-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls-reg-review>, <mailto:tls-reg-review-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2024 22:24:04 -0000

Hello Rich,

thanks for the quick response.

On Wed, Feb 28, 2024 at 04:42:11PM +0000, Salz, Rich wrote:
> Not sure if 7252 by itself is the best reference. Can you get a
> sentence added to the draft that says in section 3 that says "The
> identifier 'co' has been requested". And then we can ref the RFC and
> the draft.

There's a draft coming up that'd be the most suitable, I'll update this
thread once it is out (awaiting the other authors' Go-Ahead).

> Are you okay if we say
>   CoAP (over TLS)
> And
>   CoAP (over DTLS)
> As the protocol names?

Sure, the document will say that. (For DTLS; the TLS clarification is
probably something more for the mails than that document, but if you
disagree I'll add the request to rename there as well).

BR
c

-- 
There's always a bigger fish.
  -- Qui-Gon Jinn

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email