Re: [TLS] WG adoption of draft-sandj-tls-iana-registry-updates-01

Andrei Popov <> Mon, 24 October 2016 17:13 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 411301297BD for <>; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 10:13:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.002
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.002 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zKzcC_Ss_8i1 for <>; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 10:13:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F0DCD12944B for <>; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 10:13:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=XXBWYqPJKZo+gBKc4wvF0is/H0zKK8yPj9veNJ//J3Y=; b=EtO9inmMyAW2UQEazaHpZJ4Zhl+/4H5yTFdoCYVxxWkktpWGMkUAR9V3HHxq2c0neigIUu9EptKW+SnpGoTMUhrB9m3TDLDax/GS+s8mWUkDpKWdfqpbC63tZ5MbObe05lWmb9k10MsrVQevB+6pt3SKIOeu4ez2Gb4+PaYoGwg=
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384_P384) id 15.1.649.16; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 17:13:35 +0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.01.0649.027; Mon, 24 Oct 2016 17:13:35 +0000
From: Andrei Popov <>
To: Xiaoyin Liu <>, Eric Rescorla <>, Stephen Farrell <>
Thread-Topic: [TLS] WG adoption of draft-sandj-tls-iana-registry-updates-01
Thread-Index: AQHSLHDaWBwLpJvS+kKEBgtLVtl0yKC0mEsAgAAaz4CAAyezAA==
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 17:13:35 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>, <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is );
x-originating-ip: [2001:4898:80e8::1d2]
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: f09e9dc6-0a15-4eca-4577-08d3fc3116a7
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; CY1PR0301MB0841; 7:PinKcfFy19FCIUdIkTSEjvLtPFWsHI/nSMF8SzqHM/m4nIKGNvgykCVrmvUVTYctkElEeH5yJ5ryLEIJs8VyJkHU72UeNa181hXeCbUD7KdAl1wRAR1gFPLp1d437gZjYrlAJhLGPDnOLmaUkipomB8YoflRAXWxuVuDPON8ZKJSBMFwal57xeEU7SS8Ai4ALYAPHq38xo+/P+oNEgQnDLQF5pQarI8dXLa10DnrbTSR3iqhIovew0Op9PDes7dKtWNCmFtsuE7S7iVbrN53/icszck/mkeL+uZBgLznKiDXhwFY7MNE1gdg/6y9PAMFIZdEtRbm0PbADmfHd1SfT5IcoJ7VCjDEG0fgnE5gyszFCPW6qxgBJ6mhYfJBIpB1
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:;BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:CY1PR0301MB0841;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:(32856632585715)(100405760836317)(21748063052155);
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(61425038)(6040176)(601004)(2401047)(5005006)(8121501046)(10201501046)(3002001)(6055026)(61426038)(61427038); SRVR:CY1PR0301MB0841; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(304825118); SRVR:CY1PR0301MB0841;
x-forefront-prvs: 0105DAA385
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(7916002)(189002)(377454003)(53754006)(24454002)(199003)(10090500001)(106116001)(7846002)(102836003)(5005710100001)(77096005)(19580395003)(50986999)(15975445007)(3280700002)(33656002)(7736002)(2900100001)(9686002)(7110500001)(19580405001)(230783001)(586003)(76176999)(74316002)(68736007)(105586002)(2906002)(10710500007)(106356001)(54356999)(7906003)(87936001)(97736004)(5001770100001)(6116002)(19300405004)(4326007)(81166006)(8936002)(189998001)(19617315012)(81156014)(7696004)(790700001)(5002640100001)(92566002)(16236675004)(86362001)(3660700001)(10290500002)(86612001)(76576001)(3900700001)(2950100002)(11100500001)(10400500002)(19625215002)(5660300001)(15650500001)(8990500004)(2420400007)(101416001)(8676002)(122556002)(99286002); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:CY1PR0301MB0841;; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:1; LANG:en;
received-spf: None ( does not designate permitted sender hosts)
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CY1PR0301MB0842CC0E796B33854E68C9B98CA90CY1PR0301MB0842_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 24 Oct 2016 17:13:35.0842 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 72f988bf-86f1-41af-91ab-2d7cd011db47
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CY1PR0301MB0841
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [TLS] WG adoption of draft-sandj-tls-iana-registry-updates-01
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2016 17:13:40 -0000


Definitely good enough starting point.



From: TLS [] On Behalf Of Xiaoyin Liu
Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2016 10:02 AM
To: Eric Rescorla <>; Stephen Farrell <>
Subject: Re: [TLS] WG adoption of draft-sandj-tls-iana-registry-updates-01



From: Eric Rescorla<>
Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2016 11:26 AM
To: Stephen Farrell<>
Subject: Re: [TLS] WG adoption of draft-sandj-tls-iana-registry-updates-01


This draft just codifies stuff that we had already agreed on but had been awkwardly stuffed in TLS 1.3. Having it separate is an improvement.


On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 7:30 AM, Stephen Farrell <<>> wrote:

Hi all,

Sean and Joe wrote up this IANA registry draft as per
discussions at WG meetings and on the list. As they've
done the initial work, but are WG chairs, they wanted
me (as responsible AD) to call consensus for it. (They
wrote this up as finding authors for such fairly boring
stuff was hard - thank them for taking one for us all
when you see 'em:-)

Based on the earlier discussions and limited mails on
this draft, I do think there's consensus to adopt this
approach and that the text in the I-D [1] is a good
enough starting point for the WG.

If you think otherwise, please comment to the list in
the next week.

If you've questions about all this from a process-crap
POV, feel free to ask those on or off the list as you
think appropriate;-)

Note that if this is adopted as a WG item, the chairs
might decide to continue as editors or recruit someone
else. In the former case, I'm fine with doing the WGLC
stuff when this is ready (which it nearly is IMO, so
there may or may not be a need for new authors, depends
on what the WG think of the text I'd guess).



TLS mailing list<>