TLS WG J. Salowey Internet-Draft Tableau Software Updates: 3749, 5077, 4680, 5246,5878,5705, S. Turner 5878, 6520, 7301 (if approved) sn3rd Intended status: Standards TrackApril 28, 2017 Expires:October 30, 2017D/TLSExpires: May 3, 2018 IANA Registry Updatesdraft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates-01for TLS and DTLS draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates-02 Abstract This documentchanges the IANA registry policy fordescribes a number of changes to (D)TLS IANA registriesrelatedthat range from adding notes toDTLS and TLS, renames somethe registry all the way to changing the registration policy. These changes were mostly motivated by WG review of the (D)TLS-related registriesfor consistency, and adds notes to manyundertaken as part of theregistries. As a result, thisTLS1.3 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 onOctober 30, 2017.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 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 RFC52268126 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .43 5. Adding recommended Column . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6. Session Ticket TLS Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46.7. TLS ExtensionType Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47.8. TLS Cipher Suite Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68.9. TLS Supported Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89.10. TLS ClientCertificateType Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . .8 10.9 11. New Session Ticket TLS Handshake Message Type . . . . . . . .8 11.10 12. TLS Exporter Label Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 12.10 13. Add Missing Item to TLS Alert Registry . . . . . . . . . . .9 13.11 14. TLS Certificate Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .9 14.11 15. Orphaned Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 15.12 16. Orphaned Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 16.12 17. Designated Expert Pool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10 17.13 18. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 18.14 19. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 19.14 20. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 19.1.14 20.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11 19.2.14 20.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1215 Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1316 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 documentrequests thatinstructs IANA to make changes to a number ofDTLS- 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(D)TLS- related IANAregistry policy [RFC5226] for the TLS ExtensionType Values, TLS Cipher Suite, and TLS ClientCertificateType Identifiersregistries. These changesregister a small part of these code spaces for experimentation and private use. o Add designated expert instructions as notes inwere almost entirely motiviated by theTLS ExtensionType Values, TLS Cipher Suite, TLS ClientCertificateType Identifiers, and TLS Exporter Label registries to inform users about what to expectdevelopment of TLS1.3 [I-D.ietf-tls-tls13]. The changes introduced by this document range fromthe designated expert. o Add notes to indicate whether an extension, certain valuessimple, e.g., adding notes, to commplex, e.g., changing a registry's registration policy. Intsead ofan extension, or an entire registry is only applicable pre-(D)TLS 1.3. o Renamelisting theNewSessionTicket 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,changes andTLS Exporters Label registries. Initial values marked "Yes" are specifiedtheir rationale inIETF Standards Track documents; all others are marked "No". This new column is intended to alterthis, theincorrect perception that getting a code point somehow legitimizes the extension, cipher suite/algorithm, or exporter. o Establish Designated Expert pool rulesintroducotry, section each section provides rationale forSpecification Required registries.the proposed change(s). This document proposes no changes to the registration policies for TLS Alert [I-D.ietf-tls-tls13], TLS ContentType [I-D.ietf-tls-tls13], TLSHandshakeType, [I-D.ietf-tls-tls13]HandshakeType [I-D.ietf-tls-tls13], and TLS Certificate Status Types[RFC6961];[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, IANAis to update the names of the following registries to add[SHALL prepend/has prepended] "TLS" tofor consistency withtheother TLS-related extensions:following registries: o Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) ProtocolIDs,IDs [RFC7301], o ExtensionType Values, o Heartbeat MessageTypes, o Heartbeat Modes,Types [RFC6520], and oSupported Groups.Heartbeat Modes [RFC6520]. IANAis also to add a[SHALL update/has updated] the reference for these four registires to also refer to thisdocument for the registry whose names have been updated as a result of the above change.document. The remainder of this document will use the registry names with the "TLS" prefix. 4. Aligning with RFC52268126 Many of the TLS-related IANA registries were defined prior to[RFC5226][RFC8126] where "IETF Consensus" was used instead of theRFC5226-definedRFC8126-defined "IETF Review". To align with the new terminology, IANAis to update[SHALL update/has updated] the following registries to use "IETF Review" in place of "IETFConsensus" in the following registries: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. 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 is to renameIANA: o [SHALL rename/has renamed] entry 35 to "session_ticket (renamed from "SessionTicketTLS")". 6.TLS")" [RFC5077]. o [SHALL add/has added] a reference to this document in the Reference column for entry 35. 7. TLS ExtensionType ValuesIANA isExperience has shown that the IETF Review registry policy for TLS Extensions was too strict. Based on WG consensus, the decision was taken toupdatechange 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 registryas follows:to: o Change the registry policy to: Values with the first byte in the range 0-254 (decimal) are assigned via Specification Required[RFC5226].[RFC8126]. Values with the first byte 255 (decimal) are reserved for Private Use[RFC5226].[RFC8126]. o Update the"References""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. 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 ofthisthe Recommended column. A Standards Track document[RFC5226][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 | | | | | 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 | +----------------------------------------+-------------+7.8. TLS Cipher Suite RegistryIANA isExperience has shown that the IETF Consensus registry policy for TLS Cipher Suites was too strict. Based on WG consensus, the decision was taken toupdatechange the TLS Cipher Suiteregistry as follows: o Changeregistry's registration policy to Specification Required [RFC8126] while reserving a small part of theregistrycode space for experimental and prviate use. Therefore, IANA [SHALL update/has updated] the TLS Cipher Suite registry's policyto:as follows: Values with the first byte in the range 0-254 (decimal) are assigned via Specification Required[RFC5226].{{RFC8126}}. Values with the first byte 255 (decimal) are reserved for Private Use[RFC2434].{{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 thecipher suiteTLS 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][RFC8126] 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).RFC EDITOR:Please deleteThe previous paragraph is for document reviewers and is not meant for thesentence beginning with "The notable exception ..." after RFC 5289 has been promoted to Proposed Standard.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_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. 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_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 AddDespite the following behavior being crazy, experience has shown that some customers use thefollowing:IANA registry as checklist against which to 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.Note(1):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 ciphersuitessuite values cannot be used with TLS 1.3.Note(2):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(3):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[RFC5226][RFC8126] only ensures that the specification is publicly available.8.IANA [SHALL uppdate/has updated] the reference for this registry to also refer to this document. 9. TLS Supported GroupsAddSimilar 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, arenotmarked as "Yes"; these groups apply to TLS 1.3 [I-D.ietf-tls-tls13] and previous versions ofTLS [I-D.ietf-tls-tls13].TLS. Future supported groups MUST define the value of this column. A Standards Track document[RFC5226][RFC8126] is required to register an entry with the value "Yes".9. TLS ClientCertificateType IdentifiersIANA [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 toupdatecheck 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 Identifiersregistry as follows: o ChangeExperience has shown that the IETF Consensus registry policyto: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[RFC5226].{{RFC8126}}. Values 224-255 are reserved for Private Use.o AddSee Section 17 for additional information about thefollowing:designated expert pool. IANA [SHALL add/has added] the following notes: Note: The designated expert[RFC5226][RFC8126] only ensures that the specification is publicly available.10.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 nomenclatureforwith other Handshake message types,IANA is to renameIANA: o [SHALL rename/has renamed] entry 4 in the TLS HandshakeType registry to "new_session_ticket (renamed fromNewSessionTicket)". IANA is to also addNewSessionTicket)" [RFC5077]. o [SHALL add/has added] a reference to this document in the Reference column for entry 4 in the TLS HandshakeType registry.11.12. TLS Exporter Label RegistryIANA is to addTo 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}}[RFC5705] defines keying material exporters for TLS in terms of the TLS PRF.{{I-D.ietf-tls-tls13}}[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 ao 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][RFC8126] is required to register an extension with the value "Yes". 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, IANAis also to add[SHALL add/has added] the following note: Note: The designated expert{{RFC5226}}[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. ExporterValue ------------------------------- 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.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 IANAis to add[SHALL add/has added] the following entry to the TLS AlertRegistry (theRegistry; the entry was omitted from the IANA instructions in [RFC7301]): 120 no_application_protocol Y [RFC7301]13.14. TLS Certificate TypesAddExperience 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[RFC5226][RFC8126] is required to register a certificate type with the value "Yes".14.Future Certificate Types MUST define the value of this column. A Standards 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.,theysome extensions are only applicable to version of (D)TLS prior to 1.3), IANAis to add[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 toDTLS(D)TLS 1.3.15.16. 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 is to:IANA: oAdd[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. oAdd[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. oUpdate[SHALL update/has updated] the"References""Reference" field in the TLS Compression Method Identifiers, TLS HashAlgorithm[RFC5246]and TLS SignatureAlgorithm registries to also refer to this document.IANAo [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.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[RFC5226][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. 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.17.18. Security Considerations Theauthors are fairly certainchange 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 thatthere arethe WG essentially provided nosecurity considerationscryptographic review of the cipher suites or supported groups. This was especially true of national cipher suites. Recommended algorithms regarded as secure forthis document. 18.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.19.20. References19.1.20.1. Normative References [I-D.ietf-tls-tls13] Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3",draft-ietf-tls-tls13-19draft-ietf-tls-tls13-21 (work in progress),MarchJuly 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>.<https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3749>. [RFC4680] Santesson, S., "TLS Handshake Message for Supplemental Data", RFC 4680, DOI 10.17487/RFC4680, October 2006,<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4680>.<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,<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>.<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,<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5246>.<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,<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5705>.<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,<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5878>.<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,<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6520>.<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,<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6655>.<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,<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7301>. 19.2.<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 [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-16rfc4492bis-17 (work in progress),MarchMay 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>.<https://www.rfc- editor.org/info/rfc6961>. Authors' Addresses Joe Salowey Tableau Software Email: joe@salowey.net Sean Turner sn3rd Email: sean@sn3rd.com