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

Versions: (draft-sandj-tls-iana-registry-updates) 00 01 02 03 04 05 RFC 8447

TLS WG                                                        J. Salowey
Internet-Draft                                          Tableau Software
Updates: 3749, 5077, 4680, 5246, 5705,                         S. Turner
         5878, 6520, 7301 (if approved)                            sn3rd
Intended status: Standards Track                        October 30, 2017
Expires: May 3, 2018


                 IANA Registry Updates for TLS and DTLS
                draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates-02

Abstract

   This document describes a number of changes to (D)TLS IANA registries
   that range from adding notes to the registry all the way to changing
   the registration policy.  These changes were mostly motivated by WG
   review of the (D)TLS-related registries undertaken as part of the
   TLS1.3 development process.  This document updates many (D)TLS 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 May 3, 2018.

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



Salowey & Turner           Expires May 3, 2018                  [Page 1]


Internet-Draft        (D)TLS IANA Registry Updates          October 2017


   include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
   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 8126  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
   5.  Adding recommended Column . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   6.  Session Ticket TLS Extension  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   7.  TLS ExtensionType Values  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   8.  TLS Cipher Suite Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
   9.  TLS Supported Groups  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
   10. TLS ClientCertificateType Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
   11. New Session Ticket TLS Handshake Message Type . . . . . . . .  10
   12. TLS Exporter Label Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
   13. Add Missing Item to TLS Alert Registry  . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   14. TLS Certificate Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
   15. Orphaned Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   16. Orphaned Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  12
   17. Designated Expert Pool  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
   18. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   19. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
   20. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     20.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     20.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
   Authors' Addresses  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16

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 instructs IANA to make changes to a number of (D)TLS-
   related IANA registries.  These changes were almost entirely
   motiviated by the development of TLS1.3 [I-D.ietf-tls-tls13].

   The changes introduced by this document range from simple, e.g.,
   adding notes, to commplex, e.g., changing a registry's registration
   policy.  Intsead of listing the changes and their rationale in this,
   the introducotry, section each section provides rationale for the
   proposed change(s).



Salowey & Turner           Expires May 3, 2018                  [Page 2]


Internet-Draft        (D)TLS IANA Registry Updates          October 2017


   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] registries; 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

   For consistency amongst TLS reqgistries, IANA [SHALL prepend/has
   prepended] "TLS" to the following registries:

   o  Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) Protocol IDs
      [RFC7301],

   o  ExtensionType Values,

   o  Heartbeat Message Types [RFC6520], and

   o  Heartbeat Modes [RFC6520].

   IANA [SHALL update/has updated] the reference for these four
   registires to also refer to this document.  The remainder of this
   document will use the registry names with the "TLS" prefix.

4.  Aligning with RFC 8126

   Many of the TLS-related IANA registries were defined prior to
   [RFC8126] where "IETF Consensus" was used instead of the
   RFC8126-defined "IETF Review".  To align with the new terminology,
   IANA [SHALL update/has updated] the following registries to use "IETF
   Review" in place of "IETF Consensus":

   o  TLS Authorization Data Formats [RFC4680]

   o  TLS Supplemental Data Formats (SupplementalDataType) [RFC5878]

   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].

   IANA [SHALL update/has updated] the reference for these two
   registries to also refer to this document.








Salowey & Turner           Expires May 3, 2018                  [Page 3]


Internet-Draft        (D)TLS IANA Registry Updates          October 2017


5.  Adding recommended Column

   The instructions in this document add a recommended column to many of
   the TLS registries to indicate parameters that are generally
   recommended for implementations to support.  Adding a recommended
   parameter to a registry or updating a parameter to recommended status
   requires standards action.  Not all parameters defined in standards
   track documents need to be marked as recommended.

   If an item is marked as not recommended it does not necessarily mean
   that it is flawed, rather, it indicates that either the item has not
   been through the IETF consensus process, has limited applicability,
   or is intended only for specific use cases.

6.  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:

   o  [SHALL rename/has renamed] entry 35 to "session_ticket (renamed
      from "SessionTicket TLS")" [RFC5077].

   o  [SHALL add/has added] a reference to this document in the
      Reference column for entry 35.

7.  TLS ExtensionType Values

   Experience has shown that the IETF Review registry policy for TLS
   Extensions was too strict.  Based on WG consensus, the decision was
   taken to change the registration policy to Specification Required
   [RFC8126] while reserving a small part of the code space for
   experimental and prviate use.  Therefore, IANA [SHALL update/has
   updated] the TLS ExtensionType Values registry to:

   o  Change the registry policy to:

      Values with the first byte in the range 0-254 (decimal) are
      assigned via Specification Required [RFC8126].  Values with the
      first byte 255 (decimal) are reserved for Private Use [RFC8126].

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

   o  Add the following note:

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



Salowey & Turner           Expires May 3, 2018                  [Page 4]


Internet-Draft        (D)TLS IANA Registry Updates          October 2017


   See Section 17 for additional information about the designated expert
   pool.

   Despite wanting to "loosen" the registration policies for TLS
   Extensions, it is still useful to indicate in the IANA registry which
   extensions the WG recommends be supported.  Therefore, IANA [SHALL
   update/has updated] the TLS ExtensionType Values registry to:

   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 the Recommended column.  A Standards Track document
      [RFC8126] 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 |
         |                                        |             |



Salowey & Turner           Expires May 3, 2018                  [Page 5]


Internet-Draft        (D)TLS IANA Registry Updates          October 2017


         | heartbeat                              |         Yes |
         |                                        |             |
         | application_layer_protocol_negotiation |         Yes |
         |                                        |             |
         | 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 |
         +----------------------------------------+-------------+

8.  TLS Cipher Suite Registry

   Experience has shown that the IETF Consensus registry policy for TLS
   Cipher Suites was too strict.  Based on WG consensus, the decision
   was taken to change the TLS Cipher Suite registry's registration
   policy to Specification Required [RFC8126] while reserving a small
   part of the code space for experimental and prviate use.  Therefore,
   IANA [SHALL update/has updated] the TLS Cipher Suite registry's
   policy as follows:

   Values with the first byte in the range 0-254 (decimal) are assigned
   via Specification Required {{RFC8126}}.  Values with the first byte
   255 (decimal) are reserved for Private Use {{RFC8126}}.

   See Section 17 for additional information about the designated expert
   pool.

   The cipher suite registry has grown significantly and will continue
   to do so.  To better guide those not intimately involved in TLS, IANA
   [shall update/has updated] the TLS Cipher Suite registry as follows:

   o  Add a "Recommended" column to the TLS 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



Salowey & Turner           Expires May 3, 2018                  [Page 6]


Internet-Draft        (D)TLS IANA Registry Updates          October 2017


      Track document [RFC8126] is required to register a cipher suite
      with the value "Yes".

      The cipher suites that follow are standards track server-
      authenticated (and optionally client-authenticated) cipher suites
      which are currently available in TLS 1.2.

   RFC EDITOR: The previous paragraph is for document reviewers and is
   not meant for the registry.

   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_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.

   RFC EDITOR: The previous paragraph is for document reviewers and is
   not meant for the registry.

   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_ECDHE_PSK_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256         | {TBD}
   TLS_ECDHE_PSK_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384         | {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}

   Despite the following behavior being crazy, experience has shown that
   some customers use the IANA registry as checklist against which to



Salowey & Turner           Expires May 3, 2018                  [Page 7]


Internet-Draft        (D)TLS IANA Registry Updates          October 2017


   measure an implemention's completeness and some implementers blindly
   implement cipher suites.  Therefore, IANA [SHALL add/has added] the
   following warning to the registry:

   WARNING:  Cryptographic algorithms and parameters 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.

   IANA [SHALL add/has added] the following note to ensure that those
   that focus on IANA registries are aware that TLS 1.3
   [I-D.ietf-tls-tls13] uses the same registry but defines ciphers
   differently:

   Note:  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 suite values cannot be
      used with TLS 1.3.

   IANA [SHALL add/has added] the following notes to document the rules
   for populating the Recommended column:

   Note:  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:  CCM_8 cipher suites are not marked as Recommended.  These
      cipher suites have a significantly truncated authentication tag
      that represents a security trade-off that may not be appropriate
      for general environments.

   Note:  The designated expert [RFC8126] only ensures that the
      specification is publicly available.

   IANA [SHALL uppdate/has updated] the reference for this registry to
   also refer to this document.

9.  TLS Supported Groups

   Similar to cipher suites, supported groups have proliferated over
   time and some use the registry to measure implementations.
   Therefore, IANA [SHALL add/has added] 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,



Salowey & Turner           Expires May 3, 2018                  [Page 8]


Internet-Draft        (D)TLS IANA Registry Updates          October 2017


   are marked as "Yes"; these groups apply to TLS 1.3
   [I-D.ietf-tls-tls13] and previous versions of TLS.  Future supported
   groups MUST define the value of this column.  A Standards Track
   document [RFC8126] is required to register an entry with the value
   "Yes".

   IANA [SHALL add/has added] the following note:

   Note:  Supported Groups marked as "Yes" are those allocated via
      Standards Track RFCs.  Supported Groups marked as "No" are not;
      supported groups marked "No" range from "good" to "bad" from a
      cryptographic standpoint.

   Note:  The designated expert [RFC8126] only ensures that the
      specification is publicly available.

   Despite the following behavior being crazy, experience has shown that
   some customers use the IANA registry as checklist against which to
   measure an implemention's completeness and some implementers blindly
   implement cipher supported.  Therefore, IANA [SHALL add/has added]
   the following warning to the registry:

   WARNING:  Cryptographic algorithms and parameters 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.

   IANA [SHALL update/has updated] the reference for this registry to
   also refer to this document.

   The value 0 (0x0000) is to be marked as reserved.

10.  TLS ClientCertificateType Identifiers

   Experience has shown that the IETF Consensus registry policy for TLS
   ClientCertificateType Identifers is too strict.  Based on WG
   consensus, the decision was taken to change registration policy to
   Specification Required [RFC8126] while reserving a small part of the
   code space for experimental and prviate use.  Therefore, IANA [SHALL
   update/has updated] the TLS Cipher Suite registry's policy as
   follows:

   Values in the range 0-223 are assigned via Specification Required
   {{RFC8126}}.  Values 224-255 are reserved for Private Use.

   See Section 17 for additional information about the designated expert
   pool.



Salowey & Turner           Expires May 3, 2018                  [Page 9]


Internet-Draft        (D)TLS IANA Registry Updates          October 2017


   IANA [SHALL add/has added] the following notes:

   Note:  The designated expert [RFC8126] only ensures that the
      specification is publicly available.

   Note:  ClientCertificateType Identifers marked as "Yes" are those
      allocated via Standards Track RFCs.  ClientCertificateTypes marked
      as "No" are not.

11.  New Session Ticket TLS Handshake Message Type

   To align with TLS implementations and to align the naming
   nomenclature with other Handshake message types, IANA:

   o  [SHALL rename/has renamed] entry 4 in the TLS HandshakeType
      registry to "new_session_ticket (renamed from NewSessionTicket)"
      [RFC5077].

   o  [SHALL add/has added] a reference to this document in the
      Reference column for entry 4 in the TLS HandshakeType registry.

12.  TLS Exporter Label Registry

   To aid those reviewers who start with the IANA registry, IANA [SHALL
   add/has added]:

   o  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.

   o  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
      [RFC8126] is required to register an extension with the value
      "Yes".












Salowey & Turner           Expires May 3, 2018                 [Page 10]


Internet-Draft        (D)TLS IANA Registry Updates          October 2017


   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

   To provide additional information for the designated experts, IANA
   [SHALL add/has added] the following note:

   Note:  The designated expert [RFC8126] 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.

   Note:  Exporters Labels marked as "Yes" are those allocated via
      Standards Track RFCs.  Exporter Labels marked as "No" are not.

   IANA [SHALL update/has updated] the reference for this registry to
   also refer to this document.

13.  Add Missing Item to TLS Alert Registry

   IANA [SHALL add/has added] the following entry to the TLS Alert
   Registry; the entry was omitted from the IANA instructions in
   [RFC7301]):

   120   no_application_protocol  Y  [RFC7301]

14.  TLS Certificate Types

   Experience has shown that the IETF Consensus registry policy for TLS
   Certificate Types is too strict.  Based on WG consensus, the decision
   was taken to change registration policy to Specification Required
   [RFC8126] while reserving a small part of the code space for
   experimental and prviate use.  Therefore, IANA [SHALL add/has added]
   a "Recommended" column to the registry.  X.509 and Raw Public Key are
   "Yes".  All others are "No".  A Standards Track document [RFC8126] is
   required to register a certificate type with the value "Yes".  Future
   Certificate Types MUST define the value of this column.  A Standards



Salowey & Turner           Expires May 3, 2018                 [Page 11]


Internet-Draft        (D)TLS IANA Registry Updates          October 2017


   Track document [RFC8126] is required to register an entry with the
   value "Yes".

   See Section 17 for additional information about the designated expert
   pool.

   IANA [SHALL add/has added] the following note:

   Note:  Certificate Types marked as "Yes" are those allocated via
      Standards Track RFCs.  Certificate Types marked as "No" are not.

   IANA [SHALL update/has updated] the reference for this registry to
   also refer this document.

15.  Orphaned Extensions

   To make it clear that (D)TLS 1.3 has orphaned certain extensions
   (i.e., some extensions are only applicable to version of (D)TLS prior
   to 1.3), IANA [SHALL add/has added] the following note 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 extensions are not applicable to (D)TLS 1.3.

16.  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:

   o  [SHALL add/has added] 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  [SHALL add/has added] 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  [SHALL update/has updated] the "Reference" field in the TLS
      Compression Method Identifiers, TLS HashAlgorithm and TLS
      SignatureAlgorithm registries to also refer to this document.



Salowey & Turner           Expires May 3, 2018                 [Page 12]


Internet-Draft        (D)TLS IANA Registry Updates          October 2017


   o  [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".

   Despite the fact that the HashAlgorithm and SignarureAlgorithm
   registries are orphaned, it is still import to warn implementers of
   pre-TLS1.3 implmentations about the dangers of blinding implementing
   cryptographic algorithms.  Therefore, IANA [SHALL add/has added] the
   following warning to the HashAlgorithm and SignatureAlgorithm:

   WARNING:  Cryptographic algorithms and parameters 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.

17.  Designated Expert Pool

   Specification Required [RFC8126] 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").

   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.





Salowey & Turner           Expires May 3, 2018                 [Page 13]


Internet-Draft        (D)TLS IANA Registry Updates          October 2017


   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.

18.  Security Considerations

   The change to Specification Required from IETF Review lowers the
   amount of review provided by the WG for cipher suites and supported
   groups.  This change reflects reality in that the WG essentially
   provided no cryptographic review of the cipher suites or supported
   groups.  This was especially true of national cipher suites.

   Recommended algorithms regarded as secure for general use at the time
   of registration, however, cryptographic algorithms and parameters
   will be broken or weakened over time.  It is possible that the
   recommended status in the registry lags behind the most recent
   advances in cryptanalysis.  Implementers and users need to check that
   the cryptographic algorithms listed continue to provide the expected
   level of security.

   Designated experts ensure the specification is publicly available.
   They may provide more in depth reviews.  Their review should not be
   taken as an endorsement of the cipher suite, extension, supported
   group, etc.

19.  IANA Considerations

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

20.  References

20.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-tls-tls13]
              Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
              Version 1.3", draft-ietf-tls-tls13-21 (work in progress),
              July 2017.

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





Salowey & Turner           Expires May 3, 2018                 [Page 14]


Internet-Draft        (D)TLS IANA Registry Updates          October 2017


   [RFC4680]  Santesson, S., "TLS Handshake Message for Supplemental
              Data", RFC 4680, DOI 10.17487/RFC4680, October 2006,
              <https://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, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5077>.

   [RFC5246]  Dierks, T. and E. Rescorla, "The Transport Layer Security
              (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2", RFC 5246,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC5246, August 2008, <https://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, <https://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, <https://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, <https://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, <https://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, <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7301>.

   [RFC8126]  Cotton, M., Leiba, B., and T. Narten, "Guidelines for
              Writing an IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", BCP 26,
              RFC 8126, DOI 10.17487/RFC8126, June 2017,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc8126>.

20.2.  Informative References







Salowey & Turner           Expires May 3, 2018                 [Page 15]


Internet-Draft        (D)TLS IANA Registry Updates          October 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-17 (work in progress), May 2017.

   [RFC6961]  Pettersen, Y., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS)
              Multiple Certificate Status Request Extension", RFC 6961,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC6961, June 2013, <https://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 May 3, 2018                 [Page 16]


Html markup produced by rfcmarkup 1.129b, available from https://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcmarkup/