On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 06:30:47PM +0100, Thomas Fossati wrote:
Hi Rich,
On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 03:42:57PM +0100, Thomas Fossati wrote:
I am concerned about the new registry table being different from the
majority of TLS registrations. Why is that?
You mean why we are using "DTLS-only" rather than "DTLS-OK"?
Or the fact that we don't have a "Comments/Notes" column?
If the former, it makes sense to invert the logic because RRC is
primarily a DTLS mechanism, therefore it'd always score true using
"DTLS-OK" semantic.
If the latter, we have an open PR to align with rfc8447bis [1].
cheers, t
[1] https://github.com/tlswg/dtls-rrc/pull/75
You are right, the new registry should be Expert Review.
I have added https://github.com/tlswg/dtls-rrc/issues/78 to track this.
Hold on, brain fart! (Sorry, it's the end of a very long day.)
It took some time to unearth the deja-vu conversation from my inbox but
I finally found it. The change from Expert Review to Standards Action
happened around 2nd WGLC while addressing Marco Tiloca's review.
Here's the rationale:
RRC potentially enables a whole new path layer subprotocol for DTLS,
for example to do PMTU, etc.
If you want to add new code points to the rrc_msg_type, there should
be:
a) a *very good* reason; and
b) the proposal should be vetted by both the security and transport
communities, i.e., at least a couple of working groups.
It seems excessive put this kind of responsibility solely on the DE.
Does it make sense?
cheers, t
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
