[Docs] [txt|pdf|xml|html] [Tracker] [WG] [Email] [Diff1] [Diff2] [Nits]

Versions: (draft-sandj-tls-iana-registry-updates) 00 01

TLS WG                                                        J. Salowey
Internet-Draft                                          Tableau Software
Updates: 3749, 5077, 4680, 5246, 5878,                         S. Turner
         6520, 7301 (if approved)                                  sn3rd
Intended status: Standards Track                          April 28, 2017
Expires: October 30, 2017


                      D/TLS IANA Registry Updates
                draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates-01

Abstract

   This document changes the IANA registry policy for a number of
   registries related to DTLS and TLS, renames some of the registries
   for consistency, and adds notes to many of the registries.  As a
   result, this document updates many RFCs (see updates header).

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

   This Internet-Draft will expire on October 30, 2017.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
   (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
   publication of this document.  Please review these documents
   carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect
   to this document.  Code Components extracted from this document must
   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of




Salowey & Turner        Expires October 30, 2017                [Page 1]


Internet-Draft         D/TLS IANA Registry Updates            April 2017


   the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
   described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Process Note  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   2.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   2
   3.  Add "TLS" to Registry Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   4.  Aligning with RFC 5226  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   5.  Session Ticket TLS Extension  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   6.  TLS ExtensionType Values  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   7.  TLS Cipher Suite Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   8.  TLS Supported Groups  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   9.  TLS ClientCertificateType Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   10. New Session Ticket TLS Handshake Message Type . . . . . . . .   8
   11. TLS Exporter Label Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   12. Add Missing Item to TLS Alert Registry  . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   13. TLS Certificate Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   14. Orphaned Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   15. Orphaned Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   16. Designated Expert Pool  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   17. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   18. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   19. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     19.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     19.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13

1.  Process Note

   As the authors of this draft are also the WG chairs, the responsible
   Area Director has agreed to judge consensus.

   RFC EDITOR: Please delete section prior to publication.

2.  Introduction

   This document requests that IANA make changes to a number of DTLS-
   and TLS-related IANA registries.

   In this document, we use the term "(D)TLS" to refer to registries
   that apply to both TLS and DTLS.

   o  Add "TLS" to registries' names for consistency amongst TLS-related
      registries.

   o  Change the IANA registry policy [RFC5226] for the TLS
      ExtensionType Values, TLS Cipher Suite, and TLS



Salowey & Turner        Expires October 30, 2017                [Page 2]


Internet-Draft         D/TLS IANA Registry Updates            April 2017


      ClientCertificateType Identifiers registries.  These changes
      register a small part of these code spaces for experimentation and
      private use.

   o  Add designated expert instructions as notes in the TLS
      ExtensionType Values, TLS Cipher Suite, TLS ClientCertificateType
      Identifiers, and TLS Exporter Label registries to inform users
      about what to expect from the designated expert.

   o  Add notes to indicate whether an extension, certain values of an
      extension, or an entire registry is only applicable pre-(D)TLS
      1.3.

   o  Rename the NewSessionTicket TLS HandshakeType message registry
      entry [RFC5077] to new_session_ticket to match the naming
      nomenclature for the other Handshake type names and to match with
      existing implementations.

   o  Rename the SessionTicket TLS extension to session_ticket to match
      the nomenclature for the other extensions' names.

   o  Add missing entry to the TLS Alert Registry for the
      no_application_protocol alert defined in [RFC7301].

   o  Added "Recommended" column to TLS ExtensionType Values, TLS Cipher
      Suite, TLS Certificate Types, TLS Supported Groups, and TLS
      Exporters Label registries.  Initial values marked "Yes" are
      specified in IETF Standards Track documents; all others are marked
      "No".  This new column is intended to alter the incorrect
      perception that getting a code point somehow legitimizes the
      extension, cipher suite/algorithm, or exporter.

   o  Establish Designated Expert pool rules for Specification Required
      registries.

   This document proposes no changes to the registration policies for
   TLS Alert [I-D.ietf-tls-tls13], TLS ContentType [I-D.ietf-tls-tls13],
   TLS HandshakeType, [I-D.ietf-tls-tls13] and TLS Certificate Status
   Types [RFC6961]; the existing policies (Standards Action for the
   first three; IETF Review for the last), are appropriate for these
   one-byte code points because of their scarcity.

3.  Add "TLS" to Registry Names

   IANA is to update the names of the following registries to add "TLS"
   to for consistency with the other TLS-related extensions:

   o  Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) Protocol IDs,



Salowey & Turner        Expires October 30, 2017                [Page 3]


Internet-Draft         D/TLS IANA Registry Updates            April 2017


   o  ExtensionType Values,

   o  Heartbeat Message Types,

   o  Heartbeat Modes, and

   o  Supported Groups.

   IANA is also to add a reference to this document for the registry
   whose names have been updated as a result of the above change.  The
   remainder of this document will use the registry names with the "TLS"
   prefix.

4.  Aligning with RFC 5226

   Many of the TLS-related IANA registries were defined prior to
   [RFC5226] where "IETF Consensus" was used instead of the
   RFC5226-defined "IETF Review".  To align with the new terminology,
   IANA is to update to use "IETF Review" in place of "IETF Consensus"
   in the following registries:

   o  TLS Authorization Data Formats

   o  TLS Supplemental Data Formats (SupplementalDataType)

   This is not a universal change as some registries originally defined
   with "IETF Consensus" are undergoing other changes either as a result
   of this document or [I-D.ietf-tls-rfc4492bis].

5.  Session Ticket TLS Extension

   The nomenclature for the registry entries in the TLS ExtensionType
   Values registry correspond to the presentation language field name
   except for entry 35.  To ensure that the values in the registry are
   consistently identified in the registry, IANA is to rename entry 35
   to "session_ticket (renamed from "SessionTicket TLS")".

6.  TLS ExtensionType Values

   IANA is to update the TLS ExtensionType Values registry as follows:

   o  Change the registry policy to:

      Values with the first byte in the range 0-254 (decimal) are
      assigned via Specification Required [RFC5226].  Values with the
      first byte 255 (decimal) are reserved for Private Use [RFC5226].

   o  Update the "References" to also refer to this document.



Salowey & Turner        Expires October 30, 2017                [Page 4]


Internet-Draft         D/TLS IANA Registry Updates            April 2017


   o  Add the following note:

      Note: Experts are to verify that there is in fact a publicly
      available standard.

   o  Add a "Recommended" column with the contents as listed below.
      This table has been generated by marking Standards Track RFCs as
      "Yes" and all others as "No".  Future extensions MUST define the
      value of this column.  A Standards Track document [RFC5226] is
      required to register an extension with the value "Yes".

         +----------------------------------------+-------------+
         | Extension                              | Recommended |
         +----------------------------------------+-------------+
         | server_name                            |         Yes |
         |                                        |             |
         | max_fragment_length                    |         Yes |
         |                                        |             |
         | client_certificate_url                 |         Yes |
         |                                        |             |
         | trusted_ca_keys                        |         Yes |
         |                                        |             |
         | truncated_hmac                         |         Yes |
         |                                        |             |
         | status_request                         |         Yes |
         |                                        |             |
         | user_mapping                           |         Yes |
         |                                        |             |
         | client_authz                           |          No |
         |                                        |             |
         | server_authz                           |          No |
         |                                        |             |
         | cert_type                              |         Yes |
         |                                        |             |
         | supported_groups                       |         Yes |
         |                                        |             |
         | ec_point_formats                       |         Yes |
         |                                        |             |
         | srp                                    |          No |
         |                                        |             |
         | signature_algorithms                   |         Yes |
         |                                        |             |
         | use_srtp                               |         Yes |
         |                                        |             |
         | heartbeat                              |         Yes |
         |                                        |             |
         | application_layer_protocol_negotiation |         Yes |
         |                                        |             |



Salowey & Turner        Expires October 30, 2017                [Page 5]


Internet-Draft         D/TLS IANA Registry Updates            April 2017


         | status_request_v2                      |         Yes |
         |                                        |             |
         | signed_certificate_timestamp           |          No |
         |                                        |             |
         | client_certificate_type                |         Yes |
         |                                        |             |
         | server_certificate_type                |         Yes |
         |                                        |             |
         | padding                                |         Yes |
         |                                        |             |
         | encrypt_then_mac                       |         Yes |
         |                                        |             |
         | extended_master_secret                 |         Yes |
         |                                        |             |
         | session_ticket                         |         Yes |
         |                                        |             |
         | renegotiation_info                     |         Yes |
         +----------------------------------------+-------------+

7.  TLS Cipher Suite Registry

   IANA is to update the TLS Cipher Suite registry as follows:

   o  Change the registry policy to:

      Values with the first byte in the range 0-254 (decimal) are
      assigned via Specification Required [RFC5226].  Values with the
      first byte 255 (decimal) are reserved for Private Use [RFC2434].

   o  Add a "Recommended" column to the cipher suite registry.  The
      cipher suites that follow in the two tables are marked as "Yes".
      All other cipher suites are marked as "No".  Future cipher suites
      MUST define the value of the Recommended column.  A Standards
      Track document [RFC5226] is required to register a cipher suite
      with the value "Yes".

   o  Update the reference for this registry to also point to this
      document.

   The cipher suites that follow are standards track server-
   authenticated (and optionally client-authenticated) cipher suites
   which are currently available in TLS 1.2.  The notable exception are
   the ECDHE AES GCM cipher suites which are not yet standards track
   prior to the publication of this specification, but this document
   promotes those 4 cipher suites to standards track (see TO-DO insert
   reference).





Salowey & Turner        Expires October 30, 2017                [Page 6]


Internet-Draft         D/TLS IANA Registry Updates            April 2017


   RFC EDITOR: Please delete the sentence beginning with "The notable
   exception ..." after RFC 5289 has been promoted to Proposed Standard.

   Cipher Suite Name                             | Value
   ----------------------------------------------+------------
   TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256           | {0x00,0x9E}
   TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384           | {0x00,0x9F}
   TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256       | {0xC0,0x2B}
   TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384       | {0xC0,0x2C}
   TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256         | {0xC0,0x2F}
   TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384         | {0xC0,0x30}
   TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CCM                  | {0xC0,0x9E}
   TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CCM                  | {0xC0,0x9F}
   TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CCM_8                | {0xC0,0xA2}
   TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CCM_8                | {0xC0,0xA3}
   TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_CHACHA20_POLY1305_SHA256   | {0xCC,0xA8}
   TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_CHACHA20_POLY1305_SHA256 | {0xCC,0xA9}
   TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_CHACHA20_POLY1305_SHA256     | {0xCC,0xAA}

   The cipher suites that follow are standards track ephemeral pre-
   shared key cipher suites which are available in TLS 1.2.  [RFC6655]
   is inconsistent with respect to the ordering of components within PSK
   AES CCM cipher suite names; those names are used here without
   modification.

   Cipher Suite Name                             | Value
   ----------------------------------------------+------------
   TLS_DHE_PSK_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256           | {0x00,0xAA}
   TLS_DHE_PSK_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384           | {0x00,0xAB}
   TLS_DHE_PSK_WITH_AES_128_CCM                  | {0xC0,0xA6}
   TLS_DHE_PSK_WITH_AES_256_CCM                  | {0xC0,0xA7}
   TLS_PSK_DHE_WITH_AES_128_CCM_8                | {0xC0,0xAA}
   TLS_PSK_DHE_WITH_AES_256_CCM_8                | {0xC0,0xAB}
   TLS_ECDHE_PSK_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256         | {TBD}
   TLS_ECDHE_PSK_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384         | {TBD}
   TLS_ECDHE_PSK_WITH_AES_128_CCM_8_SHA256       | {TBD}
   TLS_ECDHE_PSK_WITH_AES_128_CCM_SHA256         | {TBD}
   TLS_ECDHE_PSK_WITH_AES_256_CCM_SHA384         | {TBD}
   TLS_ECDHE_PSK_WITH_CHACHA20_POLY1305_SHA256   | {0xCC,0xAC}
   TLS_DHE_PSK_WITH_CHACHA20_POLY1305_SHA256     | {0xCC,0xAD}

   o  Add the following:

      WARNING: Cryptographic algorithms will be broken or weakened over
      time.  Blindly implementing cipher suites listed here is not
      advised.  Implementers and users need to check that the
      cryptographic algorithms listed continue to provide the expected
      level of security.



Salowey & Turner        Expires October 30, 2017                [Page 7]


Internet-Draft         D/TLS IANA Registry Updates            April 2017


      Note(1): Although TLS 1.3 uses the same cipher suite space as
      previous versions of TLS, TLS 1.3 cipher suites are defined
      differently, only specifying the symmetric ciphers, and cannot be
      used for TLS 1.2.  Similarly, TLS 1.2 and lower cipher suites
      cannot be used with TLS 1.3.

      Note(2): Cipher suites marked as "Yes" are those allocated via
      Standards Track RFCs.  Cipher suites marked as "No" are not;
      cipher suites marked "No" range from "good" to "bad" from a
      cryptographic standpoint.

      Note(3): The designated expert [RFC5226] only ensures that the
      specification is publicly available.

8.  TLS Supported Groups

   Add a "Recommended" column with a "Yes" for secp256r1, secp384r1,
   x25519, and x448 while all others are "No".  These "Yes" groups are
   taken from Standards Track RFCs.  Not all groups from
   [I-D.ietf-tls-rfc4492bis], which is standards track, are not marked
   as "Yes"; these groups apply to TLS 1.3 [I-D.ietf-tls-tls13] and
   previous versions of TLS [I-D.ietf-tls-tls13].  A Standards Track
   document [RFC5226] is required to register an entry with the value
   "Yes".

9.  TLS ClientCertificateType Identifiers

   IANA is to update the TLS ClientCertificateType Identifiers registry
   as follows:

   o  Change the registry policy to:

      Values in the range 0-223 are assigned via Specification Required
      [RFC5226].  Values 224-255 are reserved for Private Use.

   o  Add the following:

      Note: The designated expert [RFC5226] only ensures that the
      specification is publicly available.

10.  New Session Ticket TLS Handshake Message Type

   To align with TLS implementations and to align the naming
   nomenclature for other Handshake message types, IANA is to rename
   entry 4 in the TLS HandshakeType registry to "new_session_ticket
   (renamed from NewSessionTicket)".  IANA is to also add a reference to
   this document in the Reference column for entry 4 in the TLS
   HandshakeType registry.



Salowey & Turner        Expires October 30, 2017                [Page 8]


Internet-Draft         D/TLS IANA Registry Updates            April 2017


11.  TLS Exporter Label Registry

   IANA is to add the following note to the TLS Exporter Label Registry:

Note: {{RFC5705}} defines keying material exporters for TLS in terms of the TLS PRF. {{I-D.ietf-tls-tls13}} replaced the PRF with HKDF, thus requiring a new construction. The exporter interface remains the same, however the value is computed different.

   IANA is to also to add a "Recommended" column to the TLS Exporter
   Label registry.  The table that follows has been generated by marking
   Standards Track RFCs as "Yes" and all others as "No".  Future
   exporters MUST define the value of this column.  A Standards Track
   document [RFC5226] is required to register an extension with the
   value "Yes".

   IANA is also to add the following note:

Note: The designated expert {{RFC5226}} ensures that the specification is publicly available.  The expert also verifies that the label is a string consisting of printable ASCII characters beginning with "EXPORTER". IANA MUST also verify that one label is not a prefix of any other label.  For example, labels "key" or "master secretary" are forbidden.

   Exporter Value
   -------------------------------
   client finished
   server finished
   master secret
   key expansion
   client EAP encryption
   ttls keying material
   ttls challenge
   EXTRACTOR-dtls_srtp
   EXPORTER_DTLS_OVER_SCTP
   EXPORTER: teap session key seed

12.  Add Missing Item to TLS Alert Registry

   IANA is to add the following entry to the TLS Alert Registry (the
   entry was omitted from the IANA instructions in [RFC7301]):

   120   no_application_protocol  Y  [RFC7301]

13.  TLS Certificate Types

   Add a "Recommended" column to the registry.  X.509 and Raw Public Key
   are "Yes".  All others are "No".  A Standards Track document
   [RFC5226] is required to register a certificate type with the value
   "Yes".








Salowey & Turner        Expires October 30, 2017                [Page 9]


Internet-Draft         D/TLS IANA Registry Updates            April 2017


14.  Orphaned Extensions

   To make it clear that (D)TLS 1.3 has orphaned certain extensions
   (i.e., they are only applicable to version of (D)TLS prior to 1.3),
   IANA is to add the following to the TLS ExtensionType Values
   registry:

Note: The following extensions are only applicable to (D)TLS protocol vesions prior to 1.3: trusted_ca_keys, truncated_hmac, ec_point_formats, srp, status_request_v2, encrypt_then_mac, extended_master_secret, session_ticket, and renegotiation_info. These are not applicable to DTLS 1.3.

15.  Orphaned Registries

   To make it clear that (D)TLS 1.3 has orphaned certain registries
   (i.e., they are only applicable to version of (D)TLS protocol
   versions prior to 1.3), IANA is to:

   o  Add the following to the TLS Compression Method Identifiers
      registry [RFC3749]:

      Note: Value 0 (NULL) is the only value in this registry applicable
      to (D)TLS protocol version 1.3 or later.

   o  Add the following to the TLS HashAlgorithm [RFC5246] and TLS
      SignatureAlgorithm registries [RFC5246]:

      Note: The values in this registry are only applicable to (D)TLS
      protocol versions prior to 1.3.

   o  Update the "References" in the TLS Compression Method Identifiers,
      TLS HashAlgorithm [RFC5246] and TLS SignatureAlgorithm registries
      to also refer to this document.

   IANA [SHALL update/has updated] the TLS HashAlgorithm Registry to
   list values 7-223 as "Reserved" and the TLS SignatureAlgorithm
   registry to list values 4-223 as "Reserved".

16.  Designated Expert Pool

   Specification Required [RFC5226] registry requests are registered
   after a three-week review period on the (tbd but maybe tls-reg-
   review@ietf.org) mailing list, on the advice of one or more
   Designated Experts.  However, to allow for the allocation of values
   prior to publication, the Designated Experts may approve registration
   once they are satisfied that such a specification will be published.

   Registration requests sent to the mailing list for review SHOULD use
   an appropriate subject (e.g., "Request to register value in TLS bar
   registry").




Salowey & Turner        Expires October 30, 2017               [Page 10]


Internet-Draft         D/TLS IANA Registry Updates            April 2017


   Within the review period, the Designated Experts will either approve
   or deny the registration request, communicating this decision to the
   review list and IANA.  Denials SHOULD include an explanation and, if
   applicable, suggestions as to how to make the request successful.
   Registration requests that are undetermined for a period longer than
   21 days can be brought to the IESG's attention (using the
   iesg@ietf.org mailing list) for resolution.

   Criteria that SHOULD be applied by the Designated Experts includes
   determining whether the proposed registration duplicates existing
   functionality, whether it is likely to be of general applicability or
   useful only for a single application, and whether the registration
   description is clear.

   IANA MUST only accept registry updates from the Designated Experts
   and SHOULD direct all requests for registration to the review mailing
   list.

   It is suggested that multiple Designated Experts be appointed who are
   able to represent the perspectives of different applications using
   this specification, in order to enable broadly informed review of
   registration decisions.  In cases where a registration decision could
   be perceived as creating a conflict of interest for a particular
   Expert, that Expert SHOULD defer to the judgment of the other
   Experts.

17.  Security Considerations

   The authors are fairly certain that there are no security
   considerations for this document.

18.  IANA Considerations

   This document is entirely about changes to TLS-related IANA
   registries.

19.  References

19.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-tls-tls13]
              Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
              Version 1.3", draft-ietf-tls-tls13-19 (work in progress),
              March 2017.

   [RFC3749]  Hollenbeck, S., "Transport Layer Security Protocol
              Compression Methods", RFC 3749, DOI 10.17487/RFC3749, May
              2004, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3749>.



Salowey & Turner        Expires October 30, 2017               [Page 11]


Internet-Draft         D/TLS IANA Registry Updates            April 2017


   [RFC4680]  Santesson, S., "TLS Handshake Message for Supplemental
              Data", RFC 4680, DOI 10.17487/RFC4680, October 2006,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4680>.

   [RFC5077]  Salowey, J., Zhou, H., Eronen, P., and H. Tschofenig,
              "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Session Resumption without
              Server-Side State", RFC 5077, DOI 10.17487/RFC5077,
              January 2008, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5077>.

   [RFC5226]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26, RFC 5226,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5226, May 2008,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5226>.

   [RFC5246]  Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
              (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>.

   [RFC5705]  Rescorla, E., "Keying Material Exporters for Transport
              Layer Security (TLS)", RFC 5705, DOI 10.17487/RFC5705,
              March 2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5705>.

   [RFC5878]  Brown, M. and R. Housley, "Transport Layer Security (TLS)
              Authorization Extensions", RFC 5878, DOI 10.17487/RFC5878,
              May 2010, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5878>.

   [RFC6520]  Seggelmann, R., Tuexen, M., and M. Williams, "Transport
              Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram Transport Layer Security
              (DTLS) Heartbeat Extension", RFC 6520,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6520, February 2012,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6520>.

   [RFC6655]  McGrew, D. and D. Bailey, "AES-CCM Cipher Suites for
              Transport Layer Security (TLS)", RFC 6655,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6655, July 2012,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6655>.

   [RFC7301]  Friedl, S., Popov, A., Langley, A., and E. Stephan,
              "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Application-Layer Protocol
              Negotiation Extension", RFC 7301, DOI 10.17487/RFC7301,
              July 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7301>.

19.2.  Informative References







Salowey & Turner        Expires October 30, 2017               [Page 12]


Internet-Draft         D/TLS IANA Registry Updates            April 2017


   [I-D.ietf-tls-rfc4492bis]
              Nir, Y., Josefsson, S., and M. Pegourie-Gonnard, "Elliptic
              Curve Cryptography (ECC) Cipher Suites for Transport Layer
              Security (TLS) Versions 1.2 and Earlier", draft-ietf-tls-
              rfc4492bis-16 (work in progress), March 2017.

   [RFC2434]  Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
              IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 2434,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2434, October 1998,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2434>.

   [RFC6961]  Pettersen, Y., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS)
              Multiple Certificate Status Request Extension", RFC 6961,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6961, June 2013,
              <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6961>.

Authors' Addresses

   Joe Salowey
   Tableau Software

   Email: joe@salowey.net


   Sean Turner
   sn3rd

   Email: sean@sn3rd.com























Salowey & Turner        Expires October 30, 2017               [Page 13]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.124, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/