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

[Victor Vasiliev <[e-mail]>]

Submitted mine to the datatracker.

On Thu, May 13, 2021 at 2:00 PM Christopher Wood <[e-mail]>
wrote:

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