Re: [TLS] Reserve or close HashAlgorithm and SignatureAlgorithm registries?

Hubert Kario <hkario@redhat.com> Mon, 07 May 2018 08:58 UTC

Return-Path: <hkario@redhat.com>
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 6B77E126CE8 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 May 2018 01:58:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-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 FG6uKuFE-Dek for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 May 2018 01:58:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx3-rdu2.redhat.com [66.187.233.73]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D689B126B6D for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 May 2018 01:58:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com [10.11.54.5]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EC61B8DC48; Mon, 7 May 2018 08:58:11 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pintsize.usersys.redhat.com (ovpn-200-31.brq.redhat.com [10.40.200.31]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 495E810848F; Mon, 7 May 2018 08:58:10 +0000 (UTC)
From: Hubert Kario <hkario@redhat.com>
To: tls@ietf.org
Date: Mon, 07 May 2018 10:58:10 +0200
Message-ID: <1615071.jqzUaHJvPy@pintsize.usersys.redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <079B8933-C079-4929-AB2C-93DBC5E8B8EA@sn3rd.com>
References: <079B8933-C079-4929-AB2C-93DBC5E8B8EA@sn3rd.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart2175947.LvMkQIRgIm"; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.11.54.5
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.11.55.2]); Mon, 07 May 2018 08:58:11 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: inspected by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.11.55.2]); Mon, 07 May 2018 08:58:11 +0000 (UTC) for IP:'10.11.54.5' DOMAIN:'int-mx05.intmail.prod.int.rdu2.redhat.com' HELO:'smtp.corp.redhat.com' FROM:'hkario@redhat.com' RCPT:''
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/ql8fVMrR_9Ccz-qDkDM30wSGrJs>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Reserve or close HashAlgorithm and SignatureAlgorithm registries?
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: Mon, 07 May 2018 08:58:14 -0000

On Friday, 4 May 2018 21:54:03 CEST Sean Turner wrote:
> The open issue in draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates is whether we should
> close the registries or simply reserve the remaining values.  I’ve
> submitted the following PR to simply reserve the values and point to the
> SignatureScheme registry for 1.3 values:
> https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates/pull/75 I did
> this because a) closing a registry is really just symbolic; a draft (or the
> IESG) can later reopen the registry, and 

every IETF protocol is just symbolic, there is no IETF police ;)

> b) At least person has indicated
> they might want code points for a TLS1.2 implementation. 

then they can ask for SignatureScheme codepoints that follow the TLS 1.2 usage 
patterns, but even in TLS 1.2 you couldn't ask for ecdsa+md5, so the separate 
registries weren't a reflection of reality anyway


either way, I don't feel strongly about it, it's mostly a semantic difference

-- 
Regards,
Hubert Kario
Senior Quality Engineer, QE BaseOS Security team
Web: www.cz.redhat.com
Red Hat Czech s.r.o., Purkyňova 115, 612 00  Brno, Czech Republic