IETF Logo Mail Archive

[TLS] [IANA #1125916] Re: Request to register value in TLS extension registry

"Amanda Baber via RT" <iana-prot-param@iana.org> Wed, 03 October 2018 18:52 UTC

Return-Path: <iana-shared@icann.org>
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 490DB129C6A; Wed, 3 Oct 2018 11:52:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.95
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.95 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=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 EDtmmxy1GWd0; Wed, 3 Oct 2018 11:52:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp01.icann.org (smtp01.icann.org [192.0.46.81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3818F1294D0; Wed, 3 Oct 2018 11:52:25 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from request4.lax.icann.org (request1.lax.icann.org [10.32.11.221]) by smtp01.icann.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 73865E097B; Wed, 3 Oct 2018 18:52:24 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by request4.lax.icann.org (Postfix, from userid 48) id 3A6F5209B9; Wed, 3 Oct 2018 18:52:24 +0000 (UTC)
RT-Owner: amanda.baber
From: Amanda Baber via RT <iana-prot-param@iana.org>
Reply-To: iana-prot-param@iana.org
In-Reply-To: <A73658AA-5CC2-4858-8CB8-CCF5D897340C@akamai.com>
References: <RT-Ticket-1125916@icann.org> <A73658AA-5CC2-4858-8CB8-CCF5D897340C@akamai.com>
Message-ID: <rt-4.4.3-14207-1538592744-1293.1125916-37-0@icann.org>
X-RT-Loop-Prevention: IANA
X-RT-Ticket: IANA #1125916
X-Managed-BY: RT 4.4.3 (http://www.bestpractical.com/rt/)
X-RT-Originator: amanda.baber@icann.org
To: rsalz@akamai.com
CC: tls@ietf.org, tls-reg-review@ietf.org, pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
X-RT-Original-Encoding: utf-8
Precedence: bulk
Date: Wed, 03 Oct 2018 18:52:24 +0000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/NkMgHozXvTksxBaSJR4-b8HNwV4>
Subject: [TLS] [IANA #1125916] Re: Request to register value in TLS extension registry
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Wed, 03 Oct 2018 18:52:27 -0000

Hi all,

We've registered the following TLS ExtensionType Value:

Value: 26
Extension Name: tls_lts	
TLS 1/3: -	
Recommended: N
Reference: [draft-gutmann-tls-lts]

Please see
https://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-extensiontype-values

Our preference is that the contents of the "TLS 1.3" and "Recommended" fields be added to the IANA Considerations section.

Best regards,

Amanda Baber
Lead IANA Services Specialist

On Wed Oct 03 16:28:46 2018, rsalz@akamai.com wrote:
> Yoav and I (two of the three designated experts) approve the
> assignment of 26 for TLS-LTS.
> 
> Sorry for the delays in getting the workflow worked out, Peter.
> 
> 
> On 9/25/18, 2:32 PM, "Peter Gutmann" <pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz>
> wrote:
> 
> > Now that RFC 8447 is published, I'd like to request the addition of
> > extension
> > ID 26 for TLS-LTS:
> >
> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-gutmann-tls-lts/
> >
> > This extension has been waiting for quite some time for the
> > publication of
> > 8447, so it's already in use by implementations.
> 
> As per RFC 8447, I requested allocation of extension ID 26 for TLS-LTS
> on 20
> August. The RFC says:
> 
> Specification Required [RFC8126] registry requests are registered
> after a
> three-week review period
> 
> It's now been more than the three weeks listed in the RFC, what
> happens now?
> Can I list the extension as allocated in the LTS draft?
> 
> Peter.
> 
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email