Hi Sean I also strongly support this. I’m just wondering how we plan to enforce the "stable, publicly available, peer reviewed reference” part. As your examples below show, the reference tends to be an I-D. That’s stable and publicly available, but we have no idea if it’s peer reviewed or who the author’s peers are.
One other thing, in some of the links you pasted below you give a specific draft version (like https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-zauner-tls-aes-ocb-03.txt) while for the others you give the generic version (like https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-pwd/). The former is stable but the latter is not. Are the authors free to keep modifying the specification after getting the code point? Yoav > On 30 Mar 2016, at 4:53 AM, Sean Turner <s...@sn3rd.com> wrote: > > Hi! > > In Yokohama, we discussed changing the IANA registry assignment rules for > cipher suites to allow anyone with a stable, publicly available, peer > reviewed reference document to request and get a code point and to add an > “IETF Recommended” column to the registry. This change is motivated by the > large # of requests received for code points [0], the need to alter the > incorrect perception that getting a code point somehow legitimizes the > suite/algorithm, and to help implementers out. We need to determine whether > we have consensus on this plan, which follows: > > 1. The IANA registry rules for the TLS cipher suite registry [1] will be > changed to specification required. > > 2. A new “IETF Recommended” column will be added with two values: “Y” or “N”. > Y and N have the following meaning: > > Cipher suites marked with a “Y” the IETF has consensus on > and are reasonably expected to be supported by widely > used implementations such as open-source libraries. The > IETF takes no position on the cipher suites marked with an > “N”. Not IETF recommended does not necessarily (but can) > mean that the ciphers are not cryptographically sound (i.e., > are bad). Cipher suites can be recategorized from N to Y > (e.g., Curve448) and vice versa. > > 3. We will add a “Note" to the IANA registry itself (i.e., on [0]) that > matches the above so that the same information is available to those who > don’t read the IANA considerations section of the RFC. > > Please indicate whether or not you could support this plan. > > Thanks, > > J&S > > [0] In the last year, the chairs have received requests for: > > PSK: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mattsson-tls-ecdhe-psk-aead/ > AES-OCB: https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-zauner-tls-aes-ocb-03.txt > Kcipher2: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kiyomoto-kcipher2-tls/ > dragonfly: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-pwd/ > NTRU: http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-whyte-qsh-tls12-01.txt > JPAKE: not sure they got around to publishing a draft. > > [1] > https://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-parameters/tls-parameters.xhtml#tls-parameters-4 > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
