On Tue, Nov 21, 2023 at 9:03 PM Sean Turner <s...@sn3rd.com> wrote: > > Hi! I sent over the early allocation request and the IANA folks rightly > pointed out two things that need to be added. This email is to make sure we > have agreement on the two changes to the registrations in s11.1. If you don’t > agree with the values proposed below please let the list know by 1 December > 2023. > > 1. The encrypted_client_hello and ech_outer_extensions registrations need to > indicate the value for the "DTLS-Only” column. Unless I am mistaken, “N” is > the obvious value for both. See > https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/pull/584 > > 2. The "TLS 1.3” column for ech_outer_extensions registration needs to > indicate a value; remember, this column indicates the messages in which the > extension may appear. Currently, it’s “”. “N/A" has been suggested, which > makes sense to me considering this extension never directly appears in CH, > SH, EE, CT, CR, NST, or HRR extensions field. We can’t use “-“ because that > means not used in TLS 1.3. “” is used elsewhere in the registry by only for > unassigned and reserved values. The following PR change “” to “N/A”: > https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/pull/59
The only alternative I can think of is to introduce CHI, standing for client hello inner, as a possible value for that field. Then we need to update all the other values in the registry as well. I understand why we got to N/A, but the subtlety of N/A vs - vs the empty string irks me a bit, especially as this is used in TLS 1.3, hence the list is applicable, it's just empty! Sincerely, Watson > > Cheers, > spt > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list > TLS@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls -- Astra mortemque praestare gradatim _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
