Re: [TLS] Protocol Action: 'IANA Registry Updates for Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates-05.txt)

Joseph Salowey <joe@salowey.net> Thu, 31 May 2018 05:56 UTC

Return-Path: <joe@salowey.net>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47F6512EB44 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 May 2018 22:56:29 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=salowey-net.20150623.gappssmtp.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 cjreDiyw6p0w for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 May 2018 22:56:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x241.google.com (mail-qk0-x241.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::241]) (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 CDB7612EAED for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 May 2018 22:56:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-x241.google.com with SMTP id h7-v6so9219652qkm.0 for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 May 2018 22:56:24 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=salowey-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=XKRiFGyEufVfIzdCCY7Kt5z73qOvsgndDsGKwFYWbac=; b=LVZjdiDAgN0mkZIyhliAtMIed1U264YGWDZ0vsc4abPLqAJC3dBFocjoP5sHTuJELG GW+UUs8D06R8XhxJ0Y4GYFhn+xmvAYH65izW2jHR34qfzUbO4l1oqzmSGvxLSI4d0b/V oDP46nx0IjQIQbIr0DHpVx4eD7tVkAZ+jiaVQ+ghqbyj8F9cIXfkpa9Q3BdWT6jEAC0x /mx4/plJ2FKXEJv0S6HtpRI+W73D+GQEqysnqSn6oWfd5oM9HrV6kIRdoWRoRjy1MOt8 JOxNNk+Kp92RNG5AIZA8b0jDMA+CQiwYVedayrQhZEmT7sC2MWhWvmnaSxYokU2JnN9u qH/g==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=XKRiFGyEufVfIzdCCY7Kt5z73qOvsgndDsGKwFYWbac=; b=ZO3IEwnPbvg4Pl6ZWNaHcjoaBBIMgUOfGGf0igPyZWzUWHYHVvun855y/fQdKxR9Kz FtPptsIraRdn2QqNAlQX6PsBdWCi/WReZiapDqS8OPIIeHTA5LqzsclT81kzRZGVn+ue TBTK8/IpeCxbiavDFQzTfaSSzRVQWFOpkcIj4s9a1LnSoo2eCuy6pJGFAu4idLt2rMm7 p6n+JgquRrgB8/66jf/KYue3QLMHA4i0XzvgAnVHVLcryzb+pVQrsbzPNvz9nCeqjcDR zuj7NWKJ9XCzBu/ubjxdLM7aMjtmGK0Oh4s8YqloWio1TFaYG6auMXGeb1fnf4ZhlkPp VZfg==
X-Gm-Message-State: APt69E3RCMv+g7nNgM8grIjpo/NtmnFguMbqpPSNqfIODtN5A/S/7syF Tn5gxycKasYG8H0a02FpNI7Fa72VQqshO2ln1E6A6w==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKLW0JJo8LhyB6V6oG2QhVBgptAE3ERyx1L9GO110mf4QmCQSmF3VLGMFHCq8mwHGPxMPX6+AytdqthXsLQkDJE=
X-Received: by 2002:a37:670c:: with SMTP id b12-v6mr1395210qkc.108.1527746183819; Wed, 30 May 2018 22:56:23 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 2002:ac8:370e:0:0:0:0:0 with HTTP; Wed, 30 May 2018 22:56:03 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAMfhd9W9B2T3eyZZW-uQqJcG59xYO2ewxvmuT+SaPwoyBhTDug@mail.gmail.com>
References: <152727817174.12617.11617762950737426284.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <1527425365931.63162@cs.auckland.ac.nz> <CABcZeBPaU5u4WG8Jj8L8waAHJrTYhQyFVzqs7s7rYLfvQ9Oe9A@mail.gmail.com> <20180529201414.GL13834@akamai.com> <E3A24F00-1AB1-457D-B2C0-64368CA85637@akamai.com> <CAH8yC8kqhNK3xgqr5e+V93Lq65Vr4zFW3mUpmSoxO8EGksBhxg@mail.gmail.com> <CAMfhd9W9B2T3eyZZW-uQqJcG59xYO2ewxvmuT+SaPwoyBhTDug@mail.gmail.com>
From: Joseph Salowey <joe@salowey.net>
Date: Wed, 30 May 2018 22:56:03 -0700
Message-ID: <CAOgPGoBPSExDxVbkTeOdL3nJa9gGcM+9i8kxjgNjd75nGmZQfw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Adam Langley <agl@imperialviolet.org>, tls-chairs <tls-chairs@ietf.org>, "<tls@ietf.org>" <tls@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000980e27056d7a2005"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/LPt40MnClYn2QLtY97pmEHISqMk>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Protocol Action: 'IANA Registry Updates for Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)' to Proposed Standard (draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates-05.txt)
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Thu, 31 May 2018 05:56:30 -0000

I agree we should use a different number than 26 for certificate
compression.  I don't see a problem with assigning 27 and reserving 26 for
now.

On Wed, May 30, 2018 at 8:13 PM, Adam Langley <agl@imperialviolet.org>
wrote:

> On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 6:16 PM Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I also delivered an OpenSSL-based TLS-LTS prototype to a Hoteliers
> > working group for their smart locks last year. I have no idea how much
> > of the code they are going to reuse (if any at all).
>
> Chrome / Google is blocked on code-point assignment for deploying
> certificate compression. It appears that 26 is not a good pick and we
> thus wait in anticipation for a replacement.
>
> (The extensions space is effectively infinite: if we get close to
> running out, we can assign an "extended extensions" code point, which
> would contain a nested extensions block with 32-bit numbers instead.
> Therefore effort and delays resulting from treating it as a scarce
> resource are saddening. Speaking in a personal capacity, it looks like
> 26 is TLS-LTS, maybe 27 for compression? Or else we could assign them
> randomly to avoid issues with concurrent applications and I offer
> 0xbb31 as a high-quality, random number. Since we had a triple
> collision in this case, random-assignment's virtues are currently
> particularly clear.)
>
> --
> Adam Langley agl@imperialviolet.org https://www.imperialviolet.org
>