Re: [TLS] Additional changes for draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates

Benjamin Kaduk <bkaduk@akamai.com> Mon, 26 March 2018 17:36 UTC

Return-Path: <bkaduk@akamai.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 962C6120227 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 10:36:37 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=akamai.com
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 KRaFIXuesyAL for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 10:36:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9005:57f::1]) (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 E29381201F2 for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 10:36:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0050102.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0050102.ppops.net-00190b01. (8.16.0.22/8.16.0.22) with SMTP id w2QHWwba017803 for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 18:36:34 +0100
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=subject : to : cc : references : from : message-id : date : mime-version : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=jan2016.eng; bh=h4JWpqfMEX8Vf/1cWXcRV3uCuz60SB6uNkqYJjeyRmo=; b=cBhduw7EvS7HQxeyaByejM/a8JbI3ZOGIJo9uBLRLrb4VuiumrjCRktA/gllbFlhSuWo gKBViP/yBfnl6MMt6feamVLA3vPbL701QC6Cl30awA1aWzblHv/1iN13AKlEErOu4mZy RaHjMivc2fHjEpE1Ak2ju3MVMbjnW6rRkUkPQD//bLpVfzvsQnGjfNad5uTRzy2wDt9H nQqc4PIOy290zviNdrPxRO7vE2i7AWwwofJxrKcDqop37ggRLpyRcgI8g5nsttl2KvmY IfLbZKblieydOVEa1hqWA4p0UgcZNVD2gqtG0LTH5DPi2i6/48HzFx00sO7wyjpYWz1m 8w==
Received: from prod-mail-ppoint4 ([96.6.114.87]) by m0050102.ppops.net-00190b01. with ESMTP id 2gwk8xn0xe-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 18:36:33 +0100
Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint4.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint4.akamai.com (8.16.0.21/8.16.0.21) with SMTP id w2QHVcWK005241 for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 13:36:33 -0400
Received: from prod-mail-relay14.akamai.com ([172.27.17.39]) by prod-mail-ppoint4.akamai.com with ESMTP id 2gwj0w72ag-1 for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 13:36:32 -0400
Received: from [172.19.17.86] (bos-lpczi.kendall.corp.akamai.com [172.19.17.86]) by prod-mail-relay14.akamai.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78EBC83E21; Mon, 26 Mar 2018 17:36:32 +0000 (GMT)
To: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
Cc: "<tls@ietf.org>" <tls@ietf.org>
References: <505FCF83-C92E-4A90-83BF-4B2C4796EBE6@sn3rd.com> <77875DAA-EE63-4EBA-8951-61F89D9FBAD8@sn3rd.com> <1521713417877.45777@cs.auckland.ac.nz> <21D7BBB3-5B19-4721-B08A-9AD887F37F99@sn3rd.com> <EBD5C0A9-FE81-4823-BDBA-88F575467B97@akamai.com> <20180323125758.GE25919@kduck.kaduk.org> <FE8B999F-6A3D-4E7F-93A2-A8A2A20C5BED@akamai.com> <ef364e4b-d8bc-c8fe-5d2a-0e78fb30631c@akamai.com> <51277A20-589E-472C-8069-F5B666373F45@akamai.com>
From: Benjamin Kaduk <bkaduk@akamai.com>
Message-ID: <9901243e-1dbf-cc4a-2dc2-bb054fc03d1d@akamai.com>
Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2018 12:36:31 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <51277A20-589E-472C-8069-F5B666373F45@akamai.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2018-03-26_08:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=896 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1711220000 definitions=main-1803260181
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2018-03-26_08:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 mlxlogscore=864 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1711220000 definitions=main-1803260181
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/y6IUOgrge49Mef8dNyMumDCYJqI>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Additional changes for draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates
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, 26 Mar 2018 17:36:38 -0000

On 03/26/2018 12:24 PM, Salz, Rich wrote:
> Is it now impossible adding new things to TLS 1.2?  I don't believe the WG understood that this would be the situation.  So I disagree with your claim that this was our understanding of the situation.

I was under the impression that the WG was well aware, e.g., in my
comments on the 2nd WGLC, where I say "It looks like we no longer do
anything to obsolete/reserve/similar the HashAlgorithm and
SignatureAlgorithm registries; was that just an editorial mixup or an
intended change?", and Ekr replies with a link to the appropriate
section of draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates, as seen at
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg23865.html

> Okay, it turns out that David's neat hack make some things harder. So what?
>

I thought that's what I was asking you -- you seem to feel that we
should care about this, and I still don't understand why.

-Ben