Subject: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-cached-info-22.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 10:37:55 -0800

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
 This draft is a work item of the Transport Layer Security Working Group of the IETF.

        Title           : Transport Layer Security (TLS) Cached Information Extension
        Authors         : Stefan Santesson
                          Hannes Tschofenig 
	Filename        : draft-ietf-tls-cached-info-22.txt
	Pages           : 18
	Date            : 2016-01-26

Abstract:
   Transport Layer Security (TLS) handshakes often include fairly static
   information, such as the server certificate and a list of trusted
   certification authorities (CAs).  This information can be of
   considerable size, particularly if the server certificate is bundled
   with a complete certificate chain (i.e., the certificates of
   intermediate CAs up to the root CA).

   This document defines an extension that allows a TLS client to inform
   a server of cached information, allowing the server to omit already
   available information.

The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-cached-info/

There's also a htmlized version available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tls-cached-info-22

A diff from the previous version is available at:
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-tls-cached-info-22

Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of submission
until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.

Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 2016 22:21:56 +0000

Hi all,

I plan to send the approval message for this tomorrow but
wanted to just check one thing first. In his IESG review [1]
Barry Leiba suggested reserving the value zero in the registry
created by section 8.2, which makes sense I think as otherwise
people will just be puzzled about what to do with zero later
on;-)

So, I've added a note [2] for the IANA folks to do that as they
process this draft.

If that's wrong, please yell and I'll fix it before we send
this to the RFC editor. If nobody yells, I'll do that tomorrow.

Cheers,
S.

[1]
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-cached-info/ballot/#barry-leiba
[2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-cached-info/writeup/

On 26/01/16 18:37, [email-masked] wrote:
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2016 00:48:21 +0100

Hi Stephen,

thanks for pointing to the review provided by Barry.

If you want, I can also issue a version -23 where I change the IANA
consideration section to avoid having the value zero unassigned

Ciao
Hannes