IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Tls-reg-review] Early code points for ECH

Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 27 May 2020 16:32 UTC

Return-Path: <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: tls-reg-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls-reg-review@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F4CC3A053E; Wed, 27 May 2020 09:32:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.097
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.097 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MmmZFB2Y2hpU; Wed, 27 May 2020 09:32:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ej1-x62e.google.com (mail-ej1-x62e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::62e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D43183A0442; Wed, 27 May 2020 09:32:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ej1-x62e.google.com with SMTP id h21so28827103ejq.5; Wed, 27 May 2020 09:32:38 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=rfeUAVBWu9URjQ7RnM2tEmcneFcVT4vESq1cS0r8R1Q=; b=f7Gh4ne1yNLkSoimliNkgtE60MjG6j6j+jLr6YF/gwXcs/tZgca5iFButpEAFyn8uQ MEQwpZeFiUYTrFdK2Vk6mHthOH0CVRz0RWS7covhkbbFc4tWlxY6WcYXAHXbuenYnIw+ OazXMQRZuJ7Qj9kze2GeSg4md4da1LucdLh/9cq3dByluMcdHbNeOc+1gLABVCD2ofQH 4hIhb1ksN9JkEnjpDEW3vmascHS9vRM/pSFmeYlzXJ9Xc884x1y7OVuqmrCuEUbdYQEp 9R5R7i6gRojPL7LNncXBCBE0O+K4oRv0HDhttWw3Ix9r0EXRsXP8TSmL1UJwl3D1uy4T wFnQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=rfeUAVBWu9URjQ7RnM2tEmcneFcVT4vESq1cS0r8R1Q=; b=B9a3vYPZHTzMMr5rt2N9uRxUhkqQs0HJrlVw9XMTYrnDb4mmW3qTIKylTgdRjV71PP 6KXXC2vEVAB47GG443FM3vZdoVTIGR+E6QbfJrXFgtC6gSb4PdtFMSoRcchFDLkR1aeR IuDmkPbhkIixPS7uxNDspUoGl5dCwSMwK3nBOXExZGtJ++Lf18QyiKh5Cvfo6of5+5o0 u29s31kuBX6DPIyHaJ+i4Hn+nXzCwz+7V8He3bMm2spQZchxNGFdIiQkWWfHtGpNyTOE JyCIqhwETin6aBeqaxI8HBUlzcWo5eBVyBwNHYVdRtrmGfFx517scd0qk0lZt9N6A4C8 ihuA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5327qQFpE+v6cSImCZLqy84AsyHuwvHVN4ywAmov7VpF17u3XOli eSpYw8JeZfmJG2BLQ84vR+oYNqQO
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJybC1ZljSZOMVZDo76xeLXerhjLPlk8lsGAhb+clEIQ8JxDGfMBzQJ7+zekPsAAQl7gExsxeQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:944e:: with SMTP id z14mr6683995ejx.86.1590597157370; Wed, 27 May 2020 09:32:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.12] ([46.120.57.147]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id w7sm2475483edq.94.2020.05.27.09.32.35 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 27 May 2020 09:32:36 -0700 (PDT)
From: Yoav Nir <ynir.ietf@gmail.com>
Message-Id: <608C29D8-AB1D-4EBE-874A-9A332D1B51D1@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_9286AF12-0D22-48D2-9157-A00C5A80791A"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.2\))
Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 19:32:34 +0300
In-Reply-To: <685f0d09-ba06-4887-b039-5ba87b2271e2@www.fastmail.com>
Cc: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>, "tls-reg-review@ietf.org" <tls-reg-review@ietf.org>, TLS Chairs <tls-chairs@ietf.org>
To: Christopher Wood <caw@heapingbits.net>
References: <f8a52d53-9eee-4545-8e51-239a1113d7ca@www.fastmail.com> <20200526222155.GV58497@kduck.mit.edu> <685f0d09-ba06-4887-b039-5ba87b2271e2@www.fastmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.2)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls-reg-review/uwEhSDuC1eVWPEgOz-cEUoKKynw>
Subject: Re: [Tls-reg-review] Early code points for ECH
X-BeenThere: tls-reg-review@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: TLS REVIEW <tls-reg-review.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tls-reg-review>, <mailto:tls-reg-review-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tls-reg-review/>
List-Post: <mailto:tls-reg-review@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-reg-review-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls-reg-review>, <mailto:tls-reg-review-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 May 2020 16:32:41 -0000

Any experimental extension should use something from the private use range.  For extensions that is 65282-65535.

The problem is when people want to keep their extension number after standardization so they squat on code points.

> On 27 May 2020, at 1:24, Christopher Wood <caw@heapingbits.net> wrote:
> 
> That's a good question. It seems we should have a documented policy or strategy for "extension experiments." (If there is one, I've either not seen it or [more likely] forgotten about it!)
> 
> On Tue, May 26, 2020, at 3:21 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
>> On Tue, May 26, 2020 at 02:44:25PM -0700, Christopher Wood wrote:
>>> Hi folks,
>>> 
>>> I'd like to kick off the early codepoint allocation process for ECH. We have two extensions that need codepoints. Based on the existing registry, I chose the next two unassigned values and proposed them in this PR:
>> 
>> Not really relevant to the current request, but I wonder whether the
>> experts have opinions on sequential allocation vs. random allocation.
>> 
>> -Ben
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> tls-reg-review mailing list
> tls-reg-review@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls-reg-review

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email