Re: [TLS] extension number conflict

"tom.petch" <cfinss@dial.pipex.com> Fri, 09 February 2007 18:04 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HFa6O-0005JH-4w; Fri, 09 Feb 2007 13:04:04 -0500
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HFa6L-0005BJ-HC for tls@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Feb 2007 13:04:02 -0500
Received: from ranger.systems.pipex.net ([62.241.162.32]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HFa6K-0005fO-8I for tls@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Feb 2007 13:04:01 -0500
Received: from pc6 (1Cust222.tnt24.lnd4.gbr.da.uu.net [62.188.151.222]) by ranger.systems.pipex.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 9BA42E0000D4; Fri, 9 Feb 2007 18:03:32 +0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <05a001c74c6c$06158100$0601a8c0@pc6>
From: "tom.petch" <cfinss@dial.pipex.com>
To: Stefan Santesson <stefans@microsoft.com>, Mike <mike-list@pobox.com>, tls@ietf.org
References: <200702082259.XAA10273@uw1048.wdf.sap.corp><45CBB5B5.9020305@pobox.com> <A15AC0FBACD3464E95961F7C0BCD1FF01DA29082@EA-EXMSG-C307.europe.corp.microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [TLS] extension number conflict
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 16:39:55 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: a7d6aff76b15f3f56fcb94490e1052e4
Cc:
X-BeenThere: tls@lists.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: "tom.petch" <cfinss@dial.pipex.com>
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.lists.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/tls>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@lists.ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: tls-bounces@lists.ietf.org

You (plural) might want to look at BCP 100.

Tom Petch


----- Original Message -----
From: "Stefan Santesson" <stefans@microsoft.com>
To: "Mike" <mike-list@pobox.com>; <tls@ietf.org>
Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 1:01 AM
Subject: RE: [TLS] extension number conflict


What about assigning an experimental/local range that can be used until the real
number is assigned.
That should avoid conflicts effectively.

Stefan Santesson
Senior Program Manager
Windows Security, Standards

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike [mailto:mike-list@pobox.com]
> Sent: den 8 februari 2007 15:44
> To: tls@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [TLS] extension number conflict
>
> >> IANA makes assignments when the documents are approved.  It should
> >> have "TBD" in the document until that happens.
> >
> > Personally, I think that is somewhat late.
>
> I agree.  I had to disable the code that implements this feature
> since there is no way to access it.  This makes it difficult to
> test, especially between differing implementations.
>
> For a feature that will obviously be approved, shouldn't there
> be a way to assign it a number sooner than RFC publication?
>
> Mike
>
>


_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls