Re: [TLS] TLS extension

[<home_pw at msn.com>]

Take this with a pinch of salt, Mike - that IESG must 
approve your extension. National authorities are NEVER 
BEHOLDEN to an unrepresentative committee.

If they start to get all formal on you, just abuse the OCSP 
extension. It has its own extensibility model that you can 
abuse all day. And never forget you can define you own 
record_type whenever you want.

Now, more properly, in terms of commenting on actual 
documents:- overall extensibility policy for TLS, as issued 
by IESG, is looking weak. On the one hand you can define 
your own private messages types, your own private 
certificate types, private ciphersuites, but you cannot 
define your own extensions!?

When I looked at the flight of the standards, from TLS 1.0 
onwards, it all got less precise and controlled from TLS1.0 
onwards. TLS1.0 was a VERY tight spec. Then it all went into 
more typical IETF style with a flurry of updates and 
rewrites. Now there is a mix of tight and not-tight spec, a 
mix of editing styles, and some confusing policy signals due 
to the mix of mandate style(s).

Incidentally, I have been looking at WTLS 1.2, for my 
Bluetooth/voip project. There is a lot IETF could learn from 
that (monotonic seq_numbers for datagrams, not increasing; 
use of nullWithNull; multiplexed connections; extensions). 
The design art is all open (including all the debates about 
how to handle TCP in a wire/wireless environment). It is 
just so NOT DOGMATIC; it just takes SSLv3 and updates it for 
the different KDFs in the TLS-era and then tunes it for the 
different bearers and upper layer stack process. It just 
does several jobs, without any pretension. The state 
machines are excellent addition to the community art, as is 
the formal model of the protocol spec.

If someone has the formal WTLS spec for the modern WAP2.0 
spec on a public link, please supply it. I want to see how 
it evolved further, to merge with TLS extensions, tickets, 
DTLS etc (assuming that happened).

[http://www.wmlclub.com/docs/especwap1.2/SPEC-WTLS-19991105.pdf]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike" <mike-list at pobox.com>
To: <TLS at lists.ietf.org>

All extensions must be approved by the IETF since
> they could compromise the security of TLS.  See RFC 4366.
>
> Mike
>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> TLS at lists.ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls

_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS at lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls