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

[Yoav Nir <[e-mail]>]

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