Subject: [TLS] Extension number conflicts

From: "Pasi Eronen" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 2 Nov 2006 10:29:07 +0200

Folks,

We'd like to draw your attention to recently published RFC 4681 
(TLS User Mapping Extension), which defines TLS extension number 6.

Extension number 6 has been used in several Internet-Drafts over the
years: we're aware of at least draft-ietf-tls-srp, early versions of
draft-ietf-tls-ecc (but not RFC 4492), draft-shacham-tls-fast-track,
and draft-ietf-tls-pathsec.

If you have implemented any of these, we encourage you to make sure
your implementation behaves nicely when contacted by RFC 4681 clients,
as it's quite likely that RFC 4681 will be deployed widely.

According to RFC 4366, TLS extension numbers are assigned to RFCs
approved by the IESG (not Internet-Drafts that might or might not some
day be approved by the IESG). There are procedures for avoiding
conflicts (e.g., RFC 4020), and ad hoc techniques for making them
unlikely (e.g., picking a random number). Using the next unallocated
number is most likely to cause problems later on.

Best regards,
Pasi & Eric

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