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

[Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>]

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
> >>> 
> >> 
>