[TLS] Re: [IANA #1419884] expert review for draft-ietf-tls-dtls-rrc (tls-extensiontype-values)

[Thomas Fossati <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 06:30:47PM +0100, Thomas Fossati wrote:
>Hi Rich,
>
>On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 03:42:57PM +0100, Thomas Fossati wrote:
>>>I am concerned about the new registry table being different from the
>>>majority of TLS registrations. Why is that?
>>
>>You mean why we are using "DTLS-only" rather than "DTLS-OK"?
>>
>>Or the fact that we don't have a "Comments/Notes" column?
>>
>>If the former, it makes sense to invert the logic because RRC is
>>primarily a DTLS mechanism, therefore it'd always score true using
>>"DTLS-OK" semantic.
>>
>>If the latter, we have an open PR to align with rfc8447bis [1].
>>
>>cheers, t
>>
>>[1] https://github.com/tlswg/dtls-rrc/pull/75
>
>You are right, the new registry should be Expert Review.
>
>I have added https://github.com/tlswg/dtls-rrc/issues/78 to track this.

Hold on, brain fart!  (Sorry, it's the end of a very long day.)

It took some time to unearth the deja-vu conversation from my inbox but
I finally found it.  The change from Expert Review to Standards Action
happened around 2nd WGLC while addressing Marco Tiloca's review.
Here's the rationale:

> RRC potentially enables a whole new path layer subprotocol for DTLS,
> for example to do PMTU, etc.
>
> If you want to add new code points to the rrc_msg_type, there should
> be:
>
> a) a *very good* reason; and
> b) the proposal should be vetted by both the security and transport
>    communities, i.e., at least a couple of working groups.
> 
> It seems excessive put this kind of responsibility solely on the DE.

Does it make sense?

cheers, t