IETF Logo Mail Archive

[TLS] PR#345: IANA Considerations

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Mon, 16 November 2015 23:17 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.com>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D89F61A8A90 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Nov 2015 15:17:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.423
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.423 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001] autolearn=no
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 zWFW10K-TNJq for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Nov 2015 15:17:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yk0-x22c.google.com (mail-yk0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c07::22c]) (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 992CB1A8A8C for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Nov 2015 15:17:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ykba77 with SMTP id a77so266164476ykb.2 for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Nov 2015 15:17:30 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm_com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to:content-type; bh=eRDdKQtFS4hon9PHOrPiRL8ndeAaEcyjHsMhh6HdUdo=; b=oeNOxy4xe5gFYSsVqs6mxQsZNihciK/dyuxdmlX4SO55iMfLrfWlHkwUDgQQbbxZNT Gh6yROETD0kuaQNUYBClvBM6qH/L5PSyQoDDfRfswKOXelujPg8kcLhkUnjN6krOar1W IW5btFt55oeLPzhsH/IEF0TnEi96cSAdN4QUxJv9ALjsLHR+a2P5jMa6Mal8/mrRV9Zn +etbdS2y+z27yWnuGuhq6/1TZelSix1MsnMntmU2PInyyAfUYwEDloPO5UMlg/S08tMy PEaEWqHsCbTtyC2lvRlS7eTHzBMylYD7Fbkfl2NZOUUMLcBedirCCCMV33PfVp3zsMqG gWnw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=eRDdKQtFS4hon9PHOrPiRL8ndeAaEcyjHsMhh6HdUdo=; b=OTg1WiAqSsS3EwE5RVh3Mo4Xk1rTUng4GESyHXY/AjnlzLXdwhlZMvESj2fgvr5BKZ v20tR9loH9iFnfADMMgmIY4suvDbrth217HyU1KUixDVAf3TshSmUCWw/Vx9fXI6JV31 B9Avd9U9eHHpzLYyLcvcHTCst7YtfhWLQf/wVNSGd10J0NmmZGv5XbZ1PYIHKAxZbmbp ZNRwksF9kbR8AV7bu8xl8Lb4+TIPZFa/o4/Zdy8PQfEDjcUp6X5a9oaYkzzUtqyU3t1I it6DC9aroLEYjVN/RMya8WcQxj8htmRPeIyCwmiathy88iN8chAJlb32/64V+YI5jAsM Jxiw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkWCKMm1aAwieSWYg+65Dpscgvqfa+thzFPVAys0K68Q/czrNvWK0EegKz2m0M9MLtAGRet
X-Received: by 10.13.218.198 with SMTP id c189mr10846559ywe.165.1447715849856; Mon, 16 Nov 2015 15:17:29 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.13.221.203 with HTTP; Mon, 16 Nov 2015 15:16:50 -0800 (PST)
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 15:16:50 -0800
Message-ID: <CABcZeBNMkJSQAm0gFZdecG8Nf+df+heP2V_u9pXGJmb7jV4BcQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="94eb2c08192af799820524b09ced"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/BXYh2VDUyRuqHa9OkK7D2ZDt6vI>
Subject: [TLS] PR#345: IANA Considerations
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tls/>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2015 23:17:32 -0000

PR: https://github.com/tlswg/tls13-spec/pull/345

Per discussion in Yokohama, I have rewritten the IANA considerations section
so that the 16-bit code spaces are "Specification Required" and they have
a "Recommended" column.

1. The Cipher Suites "Recommended" column was populated based on
    the Standards Track RFCs listed in the document (and I removed the
    others).

2. The Extensions "Recommended"column was populated by taking all
    the Standards Track RFCs and marking them "Yes" and marking
    others "No". I recognize that this probably marks a bunch of extensions
    which we actually don't love as "Yes" (and perhaps others as "No")
    and if people want to move some from one column to another, that
    seems like a great mailing list discussion which I will let the chairs
    drive.

Thanks,
-Ekr

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email