[Tls-reg-review] Request to register NNTP in TLS ALPN registry

[Julien ÉLIE <[e-mail]>]

Hi all,

Having seen in draft-ietf-uta-rfc7525bis (-02) that "protocol developers 
are strongly encouraged to register an ALPN identifier for their 
protocols", and having the support of the (closed) IETF NNTP WG:
   https://lists.eyrie.org/pipermail/ietf-nntp/2021-September/thread.html

I would like to register TLS ALPN registry entries for Network News 
Transfer Protocol (NNTP):

  Protocol:  NNTP (reading)
  Identification Sequence:  0x6E 0x6E 0x74 Ox70  ("nntp")
  Reference:  [RFC3977]

  Protocol:  NNTP (transit)
  Identification Sequence:  0x6E 0x6E 0x73 Ox70  ("nnsp")
  Reference:  [RFC3977]

So as to distinguish mode-switching news server, NNTP makes use of 2 
ports (119 for reading and 433 for transit) as described in Section 
3.4.1 of [RFC3977].  These ports are named "119 nntp" and "433 nnsp", 
which is the rationale for the identification sequence.


Note that some news servers are already accessible from HTTPS port (443) 
like <https://news.aioe.org/> or 
<https://www.eternal-september.org/index.php?showpage=techinfo> (though 
no web server currently listens there at the same time).
So ALPN can really be a great improvement if more and more generalised 
and used with for instance sslh (a ssl/ssh multiplexer).



I am unsure what references are needed to allow the registration.  Is 
the core NNTP reference [RFC3977] enough?  Or do you prefer the one for 
TLS implementation in NNTP [RFC4642] or maybe its update [RFC8143] 
recommending to follow [BCP195] best practices?
I've seen that a (quick) Internet-Draft has been asked for the 
registration of SIP.  Is it really necessary?  (seems overkill to me) I 
for instance do not see such references for the FTP or IRC registrations...
Nevertheless, I'm of course fine with your decision.

Thanks beforehand for having a look at my request.

-- 
Julien ÉLIE

« On appelle ça une insula. C'est une maison où les gens habitent les
   uns au-dessus des autres… » (Astérix)