On Thu, Jul 07, 2022 at 09:25:15PM -0700, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote: > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > directories. > This draft is a work item of the Transport Layer Security WG of the IETF. > > Title : IANA Registry Updates for TLS and DTLS > Authors : Joe Salowey > Sean Turner > Filename : draft-ietf-tls-rfc8447bis-01.txt > Pages : 24 > Date : 2022-07-07
I find this from section 7 confusing: > * IANA [SHALL update/has updated] this registry to include a "TLS > 1.3" column that lists the messages in which the extension may > appear. This column [SHALL be/has been] initially populated from > the table in Section 4.2 of [I-D.ietf-tls-rfc8446bis] with any > extension not listed there marked as "-" to indicate that it is > not used by TLS 1.3. The issue here is: - The [SHALL/has] language means pending change. - The TLS 1.3 column in the registry already exists. - There are about dozen TLS 1.3 extensions in the extensions registry that are not in the table in RFC8446bis (few are even recommended). - The text can be read to clear TLS 1.3 flags on those ~dozen extensions, which I do not think is intended. There's also this: > * IANA [SHALL update/has updated] this registry to include the > "key_share", "pre_shared_key", "psk_key_exchange_modes", > "early_data", "cookie", "supported_versions", > "certificate_authorities", "oid_filters", "post_handshake_auth", > and "signature_algorithms_cert", extensions with the values > defined in [I-D.ietf-tls-rfc8446bis] and the "Recommended" value > of "Y". As far as I can tell, the values in the registry already match what is listed in rfc8446bis (other than maybe references). And while going over this, I also found that extension #52 transparency_info seems to have recommended=Y. The problem is that the RFC9162 is Experimental, while recommended=Y requires standard action. -Ilari _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
