Subject: [Tls-reg-review] IANA assignments for draft-ietf-tls-subcerts

From: Sean Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2020 08:36:40 +0100

DEs,

On behalf of the TLS WG, I am requesting the following assignments for:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-subcerts/

For convenience I have included them below:

1. For TLS DEs: Update of the TLS ExtensionType Registry

This document registers the "delegated_credentials" extension in the
"TLS ExtensionType Values" registry. The "delegated_credentials"
extension has been assigned a code point of TBD. The IANA registry
lists this extension as “Not Recommended" (i.e., "N")* and indicates
that it may appear in the ClientHello (CH), CertificateRequest (CR),
or Certificate (CT) messages in TLS 1.3 [RFC8446].

* The Recommended column will change from “N" to “Y” when the draft
is in AUTH48. We cannot request that the TLS DEs set the Recommended
to “Y” until this draft, which is a WG draft intended for standards
track, has progressed beyond the IESG.

2. For PKIX DE: Update of the SMI Security for PKIX Registry Request

This document also defines an ASN.1 module for the DelegationUsage
certificate extension in Appendix A. IANA is requested to register
an Object Identifier (OID) for the ASN.1 in "SMI Security for PKIX
Module Identifier" arc. An OID for the DelegationUsage certificate
extension is not needed as it is already assigned to the extension
from Cloudflare's IANA Private Enterprise Number (PEN) arc. 

Many Thanks!

spt

---

From: "Amanda Baber via RT" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2020 08:55:06 +0000

Hi Sean, all,

1) We've already assigned TLS ExtensionType value 34 to delegated_credentials, but with "Recommended" set to "Y":

https://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-extensiontype-values

Rich, Nick, Yoav: can you confirm that this should be changed to "N"?

2) If Russ approves, how should we fill in the "Description" field for the SMI Security for PKIX Module Identifier registration? Examples here:

https://www.iana.org/assignments/smi-numbers/smi-numbers.xhtml#smi-numbers-1.3.6.1.5.5.7.0

thanks,
Amanda

---

From: Sean Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2020 11:15:07 +0100

> On Feb 6, 2020, at 09:55, Amanda Baber via RT <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Sean, all,
> 

From the draft:
id-mod-delegated-credential-extn

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2020 15:20:09 +0000

I confirm.

---

From: Yoav Nir <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2020 20:58:31 +0200

> On 6 Feb 2020, at 17:20, Salz, Rich <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

+1

---

From: Nick Sullivan <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2020 11:00:55 -0800

Yes, it should be N for now until the draft become an RFC, then we will
likely request a change to Y.

Nick

On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 10:58 AM Yoav Nir <[email-masked]> wrote:

> >    1) We've already assigned TLS ExtensionType value 34 to
> delegated_credentials, but with "Recommended" set to "Y":
> >
> _______________________________________________
> tls-reg-review mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls-reg-review
>

---

From: "Amanda Baber via RT" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Feb 2020 19:48:13 +0000

Hi Sean, Nick, Yoav, Rich,

>From Section 5 of RFC 8447, it sounds like the "Recommended" column should always read "N" before IESG approval, regardless of whether it meets other requirements. Is that correct? 

We've updated the "Recommended" column for value 34, delegated_credentials:

thanks,
Amanda

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2020 19:52:53 +0000

Yes.

On 2/6/20, 2:49 PM, "Amanda Baber via RT" <[email-masked]> wrote:

    

    thanks,
    Amanda