> On Nov 17, 2015, at 01:18, Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com> wrote:
>
> Double-checking, I see that some of the entries in the "TLS 1.3" column
> for Extensions are wrong. Will be updating shortly.
>
> On Mon, Nov 16, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com> wrote:
> PR: https://github.com/tlswg/tls13-spec/pull/345
>
> Per discussion in Yokohama, I have rewritten the IANA considerations section
> so that the 16-bit code spaces are "Specification Required" and they have
> a "Recommended" column.
>
> 1. The Cipher Suites "Recommended" column was populated based on
> the Standards Track RFCs listed in the document (and I removed the
> others).
Isn’t it just the MTI suites listed in s8.1?
Also, I added a comment in github requesting that we add a permanent note to
the registry to alert folks looking there for the Recommended Yes/No marking.
IANA [SHALL add/has added] the following to the following to the TLS Cipher
Suite Registry:
NOTE
Cipher suites marked as "Yes" are the MTI TLS 1.3 cipher suites
in the RFC 2119-sense (See Section 8.1 of [THISRFC]) and can be
updated later. Algorithms marked as "No" are not; cipher suites
marked "No" range from "good" to "bad" from a cryptographic
standpoint.
Maybe we should also add that cipher suites marked “No” can later be marked as
“Yes” later?
spt
> 2. The Extensions "Recommended"column was populated by taking all
> the Standards Track RFCs and marking them "Yes" and marking
> others "No". I recognize that this probably marks a bunch of extensions
> which we actually don't love as "Yes" (and perhaps others as "No")
> and if people want to move some from one column to another, that
> seems like a great mailing list discussion which I will let the chairs
> drive.
>
> Thanks,
> -Ekr
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> TLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
