Subject: [TLS] RFC4492bis - Rename the "Supported Elliptic Curves" extension

From: Henrik Grubbström <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 17:11:19 +0100

[https://github.com/tlswg/rfc4492bis/issues/4]

This extension has been renamed "Supported Groups" in the drafts of
TLS 1.3 and FFDHE.

Having different names for the same extension in different concurrent
RFCs should be avoided.

Section 5.1.1 and other places should be updated accordingly.

-- 
Henrik Grubbström                                       [email-masked]
Roxen Internet Software AB                              [email-masked]

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 08:32:08 -0800

This seems like a good idea to me. Alternatively, we could have a separate
draft that *just* did the rename and then just update 4492bis as we already
have TLS 1.3.

-Ekr

On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Henrik Grubbström <[email-masked]> wrote:

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

---

From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 12:33:42 -0500

> draft that *just* did the rename and then just update 4492bis as we already

Do folks think that the separate draft to do the extension rename is
useful?  It seems a bit process-heavy to me, but i'm not an IETF process
expert either.

       --dkg

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 09:35:56 -0800

> useful?  It seems a bit process-heavy to me, but i'm not an IETF process

I don't think it's necessary. Just wanted to suggest it if people thought it
was easier for some reason.

-Ekr

---

From: Yoav Nir <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 21:44:52 +0200

I'm weakly opposed to renaming it. The name exists in codebases, protocol analyzers, books and web articles. I get that now we're adding non-EC groups, but renaming it seems like a gratuitous change to me with a non-zero cost.

Yoav

---

From: Daniel Kahn Gillmor <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 15:30:51 -0500

On Wed 2015-01-14 14:44:52 -0500, Yoav Nir wrote:
> I'm weakly opposed to renaming it. The name exists in codebases,
> protocol analyzers, books and web articles. I get that now we're
> adding non-EC groups, but renaming it seems like a gratuitous change
> to me with a non-zero cost.

I understand your concern, but it's also a quite annoying to have names
that diverge from definitions such that someone coming to it new has to
understand the history of a construct to make sense of the modern state,
which is what would happen if the non-curve groups get added and the
extension keeps the name "elliptic_curves".  software names can be
easily updated, and an alias for the old name exposed if it crosses API
or ABI boundaries.

What order do we expect these updates to be applied?  It seems like the
-negotiated-ffdhe draft and 4492bis should reference each other, and
should aim to reflect the same final state, if possible, right?

and aiui, 4492bis should ultimately reflect the response from the CFRG,
if it ever comes, right?

I'm happy to help coordinate so that the two drafts don't cause a
divergent state; maybe by proposing a pull request to 4492bis once
-negotiated-ffdhe has been settled.  does that sound OK?

Regards,

        --dkg

---

From: Yoav Nir <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 23:04:09 +0200

> On Jan 14, 2015, at 10:30 PM, Daniel Kahn Gillmor <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 

As I said, weakly opposed. And yes, if I rename the extension, I will reference your draft.