Subject: [TLS] dnssec_chain entry in IANA registry seems to be missing CT

From: Ilari Liusvaara <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2022 11:28:49 +0200

I noticed that the "dnssec_chain" extension in the IANA registry lists
only "CH" in the "TLS 1.3" column. However, the extension sends its
response in the certificate message (section 2.2), so I think that
column should read "CH, CT".

-Ilari

---

From: Shumon Huque <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2022 20:27:02 -0500

> column should read "CH, CT".

You are right, Ilari.

What's the process to get the IANA registry corrected?

Shumon.

---

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2022 17:39:07 -0800

> What's the process to get the IANA registry corrected?

It is probably "best" (for some definition of "best") to publish an RFC
that Updates: 9102 and has the revised directive to IANA.

Probably an errata report should be filed against RFC 9102 regardless.
IANA might be able to use the errata report without the updating RFC,
but you'd have to ask.

-Ben

---

From: Shumon Huque <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Feb 2022 20:48:36 -0500

> that Updates: 9102 and has the revised directive to IANA.

Ouch!

> IANA might be able to use the errata report without the updating RFC,

Let's see if this path works first.

Shumon.

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2022 14:24:56 +0000

I hope that is excessive.

I would go this route.  File an errata, and email the registry and see if that's sufficient documentation.

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2022 09:22:09 -0800

> that's sufficient documentation.

Seems like it's a publicly available permanent document, so it should be
enough. If IANA doesn't think so, well, we're preparing 8447-bis

-Ekr

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