Re: [TLS] Adam Roach's Yes on draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates-04: (with COMMENT)

[Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Apr 03, 2018 at 09:09:21PM -0700, Adam Roach wrote:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Abstract:
> 
> Please include the list of updated RFCs in the abstract. See
> <https://www.ietf.org/standards/ids/checklist/> §3.1.D. The current formulation
> of "This document updates many (D)TLS RFCs (see updates header)" is problematic
> due to the factors described in the final paragraph of RFC 7322 §4.3.

Would you be happy with just removing the "see updates header" bit?
Because I do not see much wrong with the use of "updates many (D)TLS
RFCs" in this case, which effects broad sweeping changes and for
which listing the individually affected documents is not very
helpful.


> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> §8:
> 
> This section doesn't indicate anything about the disposition of
> "token_binding," which is due to (potentially) expire in 11 months. Given that
> the temporary property of this registration is due only to the previous policy
> that this document is obsoleting, it seems that this document should instruct
> IANA to remove the temporary status from the "token_binding" TLS ExtensionType.

good catch

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> §8:
> 
> The table that adds a "Recommended" column to the TLS ExtensionType does not
> indicate values for "token_binding" or "cached_info." I suggest either adding
> them, or adding text to explain their omission.

Yeah, trying to keep a document like this up-to-date is always
exciting.  I have confidence that the interaction between IANA and
the authors will sort things out properly, though.

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> §17:
> 
> >  o  [SHALL update/has updated] the TLS HashAlgorithm Registry to list
> >     values 7-223 as "Reserved" and the TLS SignatureAlgorithm registry
> >     to list values 4-223 as "Reserved".
> 
> HashAlgorithm 8 is already assigned, as are SignatureAlgorithms 7 and 8.
> Presumably the reserved ranges should be "7 and 9-223" and "4-6 and 9-223",
> respectively.

This is already addressed in a pull request against the github repo.

[some other uncontroversial nits trimmed]

-Benjamin