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

[Yoav Nir <[e-mail]>]

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 <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 <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] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> Victor?
> 
> > On 20 Apr 2021, at 22:53, Yoav Nir <[e-mail] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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 <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] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >>>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls-reg-review <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls-reg-review>
> >>>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>> tls-reg-review mailing list
> >>>>>>>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
> >>>>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls-reg-review <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls-reg-review>
> >>>>>>>> 
> >>>>>>> 
> >>>>> 
> >>>> 
> >> 
> > 
>