Subject: [TLS] draft-rescorla-tls-extractor-01: support and comments on IANA section

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 03 Dec 2007 19:49:29 +0100

Eric, WG,

I have read this draft, believe it is useful, and think that the WG
should adopt it.  (I missed parts of the WG meeting, so maybe this was
already decided.)

I have two comments regarding the IANA section which currently contains:

   Future values are allocated via RFC2434 Specification Required
   policy.  The label is a string consisting of printable ASCII
   characters.  IANA MUST also verify that one label is not a prefix of
   any other label.  For example, labels "key" or "master secretary" are
   forbidden.

1) I think the IANA section should permit some simple
first-come-first-serve based registration, possibly under a special
label prefix like 'EXTRACTOR-FCFS-'.  Sometimes the 'Specification
Required' part is problematic, and I see no harm in permitting a
FCFS-based registration process.

2) There is no reference in the IANA section about what 'printable
ASCII' means.  I think saying something like [A-Za-z0-9-_+.] is better.

Thanks,
/Simon

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

---

From: "Yaron Sheffer" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 12:34:44 -0800

Comment below,

	Yaron

-----Original Message-----
From: Simon Josefsson [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2007 10:49 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: [TLS] draft-rescorla-tls-extractor-01: support and comments on
IANAsection

Eric, WG,

[YS] This is an unlimited namespace so we can go one better by requiring NO
registration. We can have a special prefix "EXTRACTOR-PRIVATE-<name>" where
"name" is a DNS name owned by the entity defining the consumer application,
and it's that entity's responsibility to manage their own namespace.

Thanks,
/Simon

---

From: Simon Josefsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Dec 2007 10:24:03 +0100

> and it's that entity's responsibility to manage their own namespace.

I like that in principle.  However, it would be more complex to specify
and there are potential conflicts since DNS names expire.  Maybe it is
not worth it.

This suggest that it may be useful to be able to register a name
"family" though.  For example, if you register EXTRACTOR-FCFS-FOOBAR you
should be able to use everything under that prefix in your own protocol,
e.g. EXTRACTOR-FCFS-FOOBAR-FIRST, EXTRACTOR-FCFS-FOOBAR-SECOND etc.
Some protocols may need more than one label, and it isn't entirely
impossible that some of the labels may even be generated on the fly.

/Simon

---

From: "Yaron Sheffer" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Dec 2007 09:38:03 -0800

Hi Simon,

All I wanted to do is get rid of the IANA registration requirement, so you
don't have to send Emails and wait a week just to implement a private
protocol. And the DNS expiry issue can be mitigated thus:

Have a special prefix "EXTRACTOR-PRIVATE-yyyymmdd-<name>" where "name" is a
DNS name owned by the entity defining the consumer application, and
"yyyymmdd" is a fixed date when this application is first created (and when
the DNS registration is valid). It is that entity's responsibility to manage
their own namespace.

Otherwise, if people don't mind the registration requirement, I support your
proposal.

Thanks,
	Yaron

-----Original Message-----
From: Simon Josefsson [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 01:24
To: Yaron Sheffer
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: draft-rescorla-tls-extractor-01: support and comments on
IANAsection

/Simon

Scanned by Check Point Total Security Gateway.