Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-oob-pubkey-08.txt
Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@hauke-m.de> Tue, 30 July 2013 19:35 UTC
Return-Path: <hauke@hauke-m.de>
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 7A2C221E80A1 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 12:35:38 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ojsrCuhnjL3S for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 12:35:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from hauke-m.de (Hauke-2-pt.tunnel.tserv6.fra1.ipv6.he.net [IPv6:2001:470:1f0a:465::2]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5981821E80C0 for <tls@ietf.org>; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 12:35:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by hauke-m.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8B4E857F; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 21:35:24 +0200 (CEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at hauke-m.de
Received: from hauke-m.de ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (hauke-m.de [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ezcMcxhjE75d; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 21:35:18 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:470:1f0b:447:ad8a:fbd:3d57:3b2e] (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:1f0b:447:ad8a:fbd:3d57:3b2e]) by hauke-m.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6A7A38F61; Tue, 30 Jul 2013 21:35:18 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <51F81572.8000300@hauke-m.de>
Date: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 21:35:14 +0200
From: Hauke Mehrtens <hauke@hauke-m.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130623 Thunderbird/17.0.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>
References: <20130715231127.14144.44003.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <51E5338F.9030100@hauke-m.de> <74975B22-61CB-47AD-AEFF-A273C8F6ECC8@gmx.net> <51EAAC53.6080704@hauke-m.de> <3B146A19-9281-488D-8F33-738BCF1FF9FB@gmx.net>
In-Reply-To: <3B146A19-9281-488D-8F33-738BCF1FF9FB@gmx.net>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: tls@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-oob-pubkey-08.txt
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 19:35:38 -0000
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 07/30/2013 03:50 PM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote: > Hi Hauke, > > > I addressed your earlier comments with the most recent draft > update. There is this issue left: > >>>> Could you add some list definition where the numbers assigned >>>> by the IANA should be added later. I like how it is done in >>>> draft-mcgrew-tls-aes-ccm-ecc-06 for the CipherSuites [0]. >>> >>> The above-mentioned draft uses a different registry but I guess >>> you are asking for a snapshot of the current registry. For >>> example, something like this: >>> >>> - ------------------------------------------------------ Value >>> Description Reference 0 X.509 [RFC6091] 1 >>> OpenPGP [RFC6091] 3 Raw Public Key >>> [This RFC] 3-223 Unassigned 224-255 Reserved for [RFC6091] >>> Private Use - >>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> Is this correct? > >> Isn't the final number in the end of the standardization process >> added to the draft? I was just thinking about adding a >> placeholder for that number in the draft. For the Certificate >> Type there is already the excepted number added in the draft, but >> for the server_certificate_type and client_certificate_type there >> is a placeholder missing. > > I have not added the current snapshot of the registry to the draft > at the moment. I am not convinced I should do it since the (more > accurate) data will in the end be in the IANA repository. > Hi Hannes, yes, I also think you should not add a number into the draft till it is assigned by the IANA. Now I get the meaning of this block: Value: 2 Description: Raw Public Key Reference: [[THIS RFC]] I was a little bit confused, but this is nice. ;-) Could you also add such a block for the TLS extensions? Value: TBD Extension name: client_certificate_type Reference: [[THIS RFC]] Value: TBD Extension name: server_certificate_type Reference: [[THIS RFC]] Hauke -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJR+BVyAAoJEIZ0px9YPRMyp8wP/3cinAWiu+MzBQ8xVsKpEgf4 trcvzih6H1tmD0wuAdOuFhfHV0gzuTMKf5dzANDveiya+63z0jlcEI7Rv68yHxm+ y78n7hroxFJUp8pao4ucN+Q1zBlW9Q+ON02jqJLi7u45fx9PFZ9oi1t0xwyL7pMz fGyTpyrRnUnGp5tYhQqY4LWsakpSXlLYJDBI96N+VmLL3pelONXrz47DYlk2eN5S oMNu0SXuFsTpMqSUS/qQlyP7emVq/1V4G9tJ+sWb8KGEoV1FvURLVS7anbf+Stp7 blgVsZc6sF5Dn0Ud+t1ozjOkr/8NSMKz0aAj3/F6INPu9lbvYpwkibhHqR0CIEq6 gM65205K8PSV+AzlAXMMfTUh6sVw/awRykWq5MZgO6BVrLlX4+E1XFFNGzd3H+BB OheRMfURj3MPoUZ3HwAHaFWNt2jCQ0JV+owXkw/iRzd9sg9jWW+b5GGSWdTJlWgm OC4MZzIO7lYazKs9ML7vFbpYtpZbBj9VhklkgW861OLFYa5ngWlaPr9LXkojwvqF koBYsPSLFHr59LtW9vaVeTK3j60iSSJvT7QlavVFGzwjAlSjxsedMtlHauFAFYsl CV0ri0fCIHEFv2u1ektH+eixsnRTLKepwkO7hkBNAGOfcY7CLsYHUNXE+Pra59yH DY9hk5rfiC1s6U9KiaUT =e0hU -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
- [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-oob-pubkey-08.txt internet-drafts
- Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-oob-pubkey-0… Hauke Mehrtens
- Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-oob-pubkey-0… Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-oob-pubkey-0… Hauke Mehrtens
- Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-oob-pubkey-0… Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-oob-pubkey-0… Hauke Mehrtens