Subject: RE: [TLS] Next steps for draft-ietf-tls-ecc-XX.txt

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 18:34:53 +0200

Eric Rescorla wrote: 
> 
> WG members:
> I'd like to get opinions on this proposed change to RFC 3546.

I think there are good security and interoperability reasons to 
avoid proliferation of TLS extensions, so I am opposed to changing 
the policy to "First Come First Served" or anything similar.

However, if the document has been thoroughly reviewed and there 
is rough consensus on it (which seems to be the case with ECC), 
I don't think being an Informational RFC should prevent it from 
defining extensions. So something like "IETF Consensus" policy 
would IMHO be appropriate.

Best regards,
Pasi

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

---

From: Vipul Gupta <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 16:38:42 -0800

Setting aside a range of ExtensionTypes for private/experimental
use in closed environments would also help address Pasi's
concerns and avoid proliferation of TLS extensions.

This, again, is a fairly small change to RFC 3546.

vipul

---

From: Magnus Nystrom <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2004 15:30:25 +0100 (W. Europe Standard Time)

I tend to agree with Pasi's view here. I cannot speak for any of my
co-authors but at least it was not my intent that the wording in 3546
would stop well-reviewed I-Ds with WG consensus from defining extensions.

Looking at this again, it seems to me that the creation of an IANA
registry for the extensions, with the requirements of "IETF Consensus" and
"Specification Required", as defined in BCP 26, before assignments are
made, would make sense.

-- Magnus