Subject: Re: [TLS] extension number conflict

From: Martin Rex <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 23:59:50 +0100 (MET)

Russ Housley wrote:
> 
> IANA makes assignments when the documents are approved.  It should 
> have "TBD" in the document until that happens.

Personally, I think that is somewhat late.

How about defining a process to "last call" whether a feature should
be added to the next revision of a document/protocol standards so
that IANA could issue a number before the actual document gets
last called -- so that implementors will not have to change code
later on.

-Martin

_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls

---

From: Mike <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 15:43:49 -0800

> Personally, I think that is somewhat late.

I agree.  I had to disable the code that implements this feature
since there is no way to access it.  This makes it difficult to
test, especially between differing implementations.

For a feature that will obviously be approved, shouldn't there
be a way to assign it a number sooner than RFC publication?

Mike

---

From: Stefan Santesson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 00:01:16 +0000

What about assigning an experimental/local range that can be used until the real number is assigned.
That should avoid conflicts effectively.

Stefan Santesson
Senior Program Manager
Windows Security, Standards

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: den 8 februari 2007 15:44
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [TLS] extension number conflict
>

---

From: Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 16:43:29 -0800

>That should avoid conflicts effectively.

If you want to make a change to how the numbers are assigned, you 
should write an Internet Draft to change the procedure and bring it 
to the TLS WG. "What about this" and "how about that" are fairly 
meaningless when there is already rules that people agreed to on how 
to do this.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 12:49:20 +0200

> be a way to assign it a number sooner than RFC publication?

I think it is *not* obvious that this feature will be exactly 
the same (that is, interoperable with the -02 draft) in the final 
TLS 1.2 RFC. For example, in addition to the hash algorithm, we
might want to signal support for different signature algorithms 
(e.g. there are at least three standardized ways of doing RSA 
signatures, but the current specs sort of assume that everyone
uses only PKCS#1 1.5, ignoring the PSS and ANSI variants).

(But perhaps allocating one extension number for "private use"
might make sense... )

Best regards,
Pasi

---

From: Mike <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2007 07:52:47 -0800

> TLS 1.2 RFC.

Ok, that's a fair argument.

> (But perhaps allocating one extension number for "private use"

Wouldn't that open up a can of worms?  The IANA lists extension
numbers 12 thru 34 as unassigned -- maybe we are supposed to use
one of those during development of the standard until the RFC is
published?  And once it is, the only code change is redefining a
constant.

Mike

---

From: "tom.petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 16:39:55 +0100

You (plural) might want to look at BCP 100.

Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stefan Santesson" <[email-masked]>
To: "Mike" <[email-masked]>; <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, February 09, 2007 1:01 AM
Subject: RE: [TLS] extension number conflict

What about assigning an experimental/local range that can be used until the real
number is assigned.
That should avoid conflicts effectively.

Stefan Santesson
Senior Program Manager

---

From: Stefan Santesson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2007 18:30:03 +0000

I'm not sure how to take this.

Is it considered inappropriate to talk openly about possibilities.
I can whitness that as implementer this can be a problem. I don't consider it severe enought to go through the trouble of writing an I-D about it, but it's good the hear others experiances.

/Stefan
________________________________________
From: Paul Hoffman [[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 4:43 PM
To: Stefan Santesson; Mike; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [TLS] extension number conflict

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium