< draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates-00.txt		draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates-01.txt >
	TLS WG J. Salowey		TLS WG J. Salowey
	Internet-Draft Tableau Software		Internet-Draft Tableau Software
	Updates: 3749, 5077, 4680, 5246, 5878, S. Turner		Updates: 3749, 5077, 4680, 5246, 5878, S. Turner
	6520, 7301 (if approved) sn3rd		6520, 7301 (if approved) sn3rd
	Intended status: Standards Track January 02, 2017		Intended status: Standards Track April 28, 2017
	Expires: July 6, 2017		Expires: October 30, 2017
	D/TLS IANA Registry Updates		D/TLS IANA Registry Updates
	draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates-00		draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates-01
	Abstract		Abstract
	This document changes the IANA registry policy for a number of		This document changes the IANA registry policy for a number of
	registries related to DTLS and TLS, renames some of the registries		registries related to DTLS and TLS, renames some of the registries
	for consistency, and adds notes to many of the registries. As a		for consistency, and adds notes to many of the registries. As a
	result, this document updates many RFCs (see updates header).		result, this document updates many RFCs (see updates header).
	Status of This Memo		Status of This Memo
	skipping to change at page 1, line 35 ¶		skipping to change at page 1, line 35 ¶
	Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering		Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
	Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute		Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute
	working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-		working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet-
	Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.		Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.
	Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months		Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
	and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any		and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
	time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference		time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
	material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."		material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."
	This Internet-Draft will expire on July 6, 2017.		This Internet-Draft will expire on October 30, 2017.
	Copyright Notice		Copyright Notice
	Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the		Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
	document authors. All rights reserved.		document authors. All rights reserved.
	This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal		This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
	Provisions Relating to IETF Documents		Provisions Relating to IETF Documents
	(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of		(http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of
	publication of this document. Please review these documents		publication of this document. Please review these documents
	skipping to change at page 2, line 13 ¶		skipping to change at page 2, line 13 ¶
	include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of		include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of
	the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as		the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as
	described in the Simplified BSD License.		described in the Simplified BSD License.
	Table of Contents		Table of Contents
	1. Process Note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2		1. Process Note . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
	2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2		2. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
	3. Add "TLS" to Registry Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3		3. Add "TLS" to Registry Names . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
	4. Aligning with RFC 5226 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		4. Aligning with RFC 5226 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	5. TLS ExtensionType Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4		5. Session Ticket TLS Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	6. TLS Cipher Suite Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6		6. TLS ExtensionType Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
	7. TLS ClientCertificateType Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . 7		7. TLS Cipher Suite Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
	8. New Session Ticket TLS Handshake Message Type . . . . . . . . 8		8. TLS Supported Groups . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	9. Session Ticket TLS Extension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		9. TLS ClientCertificateType Identifiers . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
	10. TLS Exporter Label Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		10. New Session Ticket TLS Handshake Message Type . . . . . . . . 8
	11. Add Missing Item to TLS Alert Registry . . . . . . . . . . . 8		11. TLS Exporter Label Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	12. Orphaned Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8		12. Add Missing Item to TLS Alert Registry . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	13. Orphaned Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		13. TLS Certificate Types . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
	14. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		14. Orphaned Extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	15. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		15. Orphaned Registries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	16. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		16. Designated Expert Pool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
	16.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9		17. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	16.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10		18. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
	Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11		19. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
			19.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
			19.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
			Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
	1. Process Note		1. Process Note
	As the authors of this draft are also the WG chairs, the responsible		As the authors of this draft are also the WG chairs, the responsible
	Area Director has agreed to judge consensus.		Area Director has agreed to judge consensus.
	RFC EDITOR: Please delete section prior to publication.		RFC EDITOR: Please delete section prior to publication.
	2. Introduction		2. Introduction
	This document requests that IANA make changes to a number of DTLS-		This document requests that IANA make changes to a number of DTLS-
	and TLS-related IANA registries.		and TLS-related IANA registries.
	In this document, we use the term "(D)TLS" to refer to registries		In this document, we use the term "(D)TLS" to refer to registries
	that apply to both TLS and DTLS.		that apply to both TLS and DTLS.
	o Add "TLS" to registries' names for consistency with other TLS-		o Add "TLS" to registries' names for consistency amongst TLS-related
	related registries.		registries.
	o Change the IANA registry policy [RFC5226] for the TLS		o Change the IANA registry policy [RFC5226] for the TLS
	ExtensionType Values, TLS Cipher Suite, and TLS		ExtensionType Values, TLS Cipher Suite, and TLS
	ClientCertificateType Identifiers registries. These changes		ClientCertificateType Identifiers registries. These changes
	register a small part of these code spaces for experimentation and		register a small part of these code spaces for experimentation and
	private use.		private use.
	o Add the designated expert intructions as a note to the TLS		o Add designated expert instructions as notes in the TLS
	ExtensionType Values, TLS Cipher Suite, and TLS		ExtensionType Values, TLS Cipher Suite, TLS ClientCertificateType
	ClientCertificateType Identifiers registries to inform users of		Identifiers, and TLS Exporter Label registries to inform users
	the registry.		about what to expect from the designated expert.
	o Add notes to indicate whether an extension, certain values of an		o Add notes to indicate whether an extension, certain values of an
	extension, or an entire registry is only applicable pre-(D)TLS		extension, or an entire registry is only applicable pre-(D)TLS
	1.3.		1.3.
	o Rename the NewSessionTicket TLS HandshakeType message registry		o Rename the NewSessionTicket TLS HandshakeType message registry
	entry [RFC5077] to new_session_ticket to match the naming		entry [RFC5077] to new_session_ticket to match the naming
	nomenclature for the other Handshake type names and to match with		nomenclature for the other Handshake type names and to match with
	existing implementations.		existing implementations.
	o Rename the SessionTicket TLS to session_ticket to match the		o Rename the SessionTicket TLS extension to session_ticket to match
	nomenclature for the other extensions' names.		the nomenclature for the other extensions' names.
	o Add missing entry to the TLS Alert Registry for the		o Add missing entry to the TLS Alert Registry for the
	no_application_protocol alert defined in [RFC7301]		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		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 Alert [I-D.ietf-tls-tls13], TLS ContentType [I-D.ietf-tls-tls13],
	TLS HandshakeType, [I-D.ietf-tls-tls13] and TLS Certificate Status		TLS HandshakeType, [I-D.ietf-tls-tls13] and TLS Certificate Status
	Types [RFC6961]; the existing policies (Standards Action for the		Types [RFC6961]; the existing policies (Standards Action for the
	first three; IETF Review for the last), are appropriate for these		first three; IETF Review for the last), are appropriate for these
	one-byte code points because of their scarcity.		one-byte code points because of their scarcity.
	This document proposes no changes to the EC Curve Type, EC Point
	Format, and Supported Groups Registries (see
	[I-D.ietf-tls-rfc4492bis]).
	3. Add "TLS" to Registry Names		3. Add "TLS" to Registry Names
	IANA is to update the names of the following registries to add "TLS"		IANA is to update the names of the following registries to add "TLS"
	to for consistency with the other TLS-related extensions:		to for consistency with the other TLS-related extensions:
	o Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) Protocol IDs,		o Application-Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) Protocol IDs,
	o ExtensionType Values,		o ExtensionType Values,
	o Heartbeat Message Types,		o Heartbeat Message Types,
	o Heartbeat Modes, and		o Heartbeat Modes, and
	o Supported Groups.		o Supported Groups.
	IANA is also to add a reference to this document for the registry		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		whose names have been updated as a result of the above change. The
	skipping to change at page 4, line 23 ¶		skipping to change at page 4, line 33 ¶
	in the following registries:		in the following registries:
	o TLS Authorization Data Formats		o TLS Authorization Data Formats
	o TLS Supplemental Data Formats (SupplementalDataType)		o TLS Supplemental Data Formats (SupplementalDataType)
	This is not a universal change as some registries originally defined		This is not a universal change as some registries originally defined
	with "IETF Consensus" are undergoing other changes either as a result		with "IETF Consensus" are undergoing other changes either as a result
	of this document or [I-D.ietf-tls-rfc4492bis].		of this document or [I-D.ietf-tls-rfc4492bis].
	5. TLS ExtensionType Values		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:		IANA is to update the TLS ExtensionType Values registry as follows:
	o Change the registry policy to:		o Change the registry policy to:
	Values with the first byte in the range 0-254 (decimal) are		Values with the first byte in the range 0-254 (decimal) are
	assigned via Specification Required [RFC5226]. Values with the		assigned via Specification Required [RFC5226]. Values with the
	first byte 255 (decimal) are reserved for Private Use [RFC5226].		first byte 255 (decimal) are reserved for Private Use [RFC5226].
	o Update the "References" to also refer to this document.		o Update the "References" to also refer to this document.
	skipping to change at page 5, line 49 ¶		skipping to change at page 6, line 18 ¶
	| client_certificate_type | Yes |		| client_certificate_type | Yes |
	| | |		| | |
	| server_certificate_type | Yes |		| server_certificate_type | Yes |
	| | |		| | |
	| padding | Yes |		| padding | Yes |
	| | |		| | |
	| encrypt_then_mac | Yes |		| encrypt_then_mac | Yes |
	| | |		| | |
	| extended_master_secret | Yes |		| extended_master_secret | Yes |
	| | |		| | |
	| SessionTicket TLS | Yes |		| session_ticket | Yes |
	| | |		| | |
	| renegotiation_info | Yes |		| renegotiation_info | Yes |
	+----------------------------------------+-------------+		+----------------------------------------+-------------+
	6. TLS Cipher Suite Registry		7. TLS Cipher Suite Registry
	IANA is to update the TLS Cipher Suite registry as follows:		IANA is to update the TLS Cipher Suite registry as follows:
	o Change the registry policy to:		o Change the registry policy to:
	Values with the first byte in the range 0-254 (decimal) are		Values with the first byte in the range 0-254 (decimal) are
	assigned via Specification Required [RFC5226]. Values with the		assigned via Specification Required [RFC5226]. Values with the
	first byte 255 (decimal) are reserved for Private Use [RFC2434].		first byte 255 (decimal) are reserved for Private Use [RFC2434].
	o Add a "Recommended" column to the cipher suite registry. The		o Add a "Recommended" column to the cipher suite registry. The
	cipher suites that follow in the two tables are marked as "Yes".		cipher suites that follow in the two tables are marked as "Yes".
	All other cipher suites are marked as "No".		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-		The cipher suites that follow are standards track server-
	authenticated (and optionally client-authenticated) cipher suites		authenticated (and optionally client-authenticated) cipher suites
	which are currently available in TLS 1.2. The notable exception are		which are currently available in TLS 1.2. The notable exception are
	the ECDHE AES GCM cipher suites which are not yet standards track		the ECDHE AES GCM cipher suites which are not yet standards track
	prior to the publication of this specification, but this document		prior to the publication of this specification, but this document
	promotes those 4 cipher suites to standards track (see TO-DO insert		promotes those 4 cipher suites to standards track (see TO-DO insert
	reference).		reference).
			RFC EDITOR: Please delete the sentence beginning with "The notable
			exception ..." after RFC 5289 has been promoted to Proposed Standard.
	Cipher Suite Name | Value		Cipher Suite Name | Value
	----------------------------------------------+------------		----------------------------------------------+------------
	TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 | {0x00,0x9E}		TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 | {0x00,0x9E}
	TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 | {0x00,0x9F}		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_128_GCM_SHA256 | {0xC0,0x2B}
	TLS_ECDHE_ECDSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 | {0xC0,0x2C}		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_128_GCM_SHA256 | {0xC0,0x2F}
	TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 | {0xC0,0x30}		TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 | {0xC0,0x30}
	TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CCM | {0xC0,0x9E}		TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CCM | {0xC0,0x9E}
	TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CCM | {0xC0,0x9F}		TLS_DHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CCM | {0xC0,0x9F}
	skipping to change at page 7, line 31 ¶		skipping to change at page 8, line 7 ¶
	o Add the following:		o Add the following:
	WARNING: Cryptographic algorithms will be broken or weakened over		WARNING: Cryptographic algorithms will be broken or weakened over
	time. Blindly implementing cipher suites listed here is not		time. Blindly implementing cipher suites listed here is not
	advised. Implementers and users need to check that the		advised. Implementers and users need to check that the
	cryptographic algorithms listed continue to provide the expected		cryptographic algorithms listed continue to provide the expected
	level of security.		level of security.
	Note(1): Although TLS 1.3 uses the same cipher suite space as		Note(1): Although TLS 1.3 uses the same cipher suite space as
	previous versions of TLS, TLS 1.3 cipher suites are defined		previous versions of TLS, TLS 1.3 cipher suites are defined
	differently, only specifying the symmetric ciphers, and cannot it		differently, only specifying the symmetric ciphers, and cannot be
	be used for TLS 1.2. Similarly, TLS 1.2 and lower cipher suites		used for TLS 1.2. Similarly, TLS 1.2 and lower cipher suites
	cannot be used with TLS 1.3.		cannot be used with TLS 1.3.
	Note(2): Cipher suites marked as "Yes" are those allocated via		Note(2): Cipher suites marked as "Yes" are those allocated via
	Standards Track RFCs. Cipher suites marked as "No" are not;		Standards Track RFCs. Cipher suites marked as "No" are not;
	cipher suites marked "No" range from "good" to "bad" from a		cipher suites marked "No" range from "good" to "bad" from a
	cryptographic standpoint.		cryptographic standpoint.
	Note(3): The designated expert [RFC5226] only ensures that the		Note(3): The designated expert [RFC5226] only ensures that the
	specification is publically available.		specification is publicly available.
	7. TLS ClientCertificateType Identifiers		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		IANA is to update the TLS ClientCertificateType Identifiers registry
	as follows:		as follows:
	o Change the registry policy to:		o Change the registry policy to:
	Values in the range 0-223 are assigned via Specification Required		Values in the range 0-223 are assigned via Specification Required
	[RFC5226]. Values 224-255 are are reserved for Private Use.		[RFC5226]. Values 224-255 are reserved for Private Use.
	o Add the following:		o Add the following:
	Note: The designated expert [RFC5226] only ensures that the		Note: The designated expert [RFC5226] only ensures that the
	specification is publically available.		specification is publicly available.
	8. New Session Ticket TLS Handshake Message Type		10. New Session Ticket TLS Handshake Message Type
	To align with TLS implementations and to align the naming		To align with TLS implementations and to align the naming
	nomenclature for other Handshake message types, IANA is to rename		nomenclature for other Handshake message types, IANA is to rename
	entry 4 in the TLS HandshakeType registry to "new_session_ticket		entry 4 in the TLS HandshakeType registry to "new_session_ticket
	(renamed from NewSessionTicket)". IANA is to also add a reference to		(renamed from NewSessionTicket)". IANA is to also add a reference to
	this document in the Reference column for entry 4 in the TLS		this document in the Reference column for entry 4 in the TLS
	HandshakeType registry.		HandshakeType registry.
	9. Session Ticket TLS Extension		11. TLS Exporter Label Registry
	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")".
	10. TLS Exporter Label Registry
	IANA is to add the following note to the 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.		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.
	11. Add Missing Item to TLS Alert Registry		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		IANA is to add the following entry to the TLS Alert Registry (the
	entry was omitted from the IANA instructions in [RFC7301]):		entry was omitted from the IANA instructions in [RFC7301]):
	120 no_application_protocol Y [RFC7301]		120 no_application_protocol Y [RFC7301]
	12. Orphaned Extensions		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".
			14. Orphaned Extensions
	To make it clear that (D)TLS 1.3 has orphaned certain 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),		(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		IANA is to add the following to the TLS ExtensionType Values
	registry:		registry:
	Note: The following extensions are only applicable to (D)TLS protocol vesions prior to 1.3: truncated_hmac, srp, encrypt_then_mac, extended_master_secret, session_ticket, and renegotiation_info. These are not applicable to DTLS 1.3.		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.
	13. Orphaned Registries		15. Orphaned Registries
	To make it clear that (D)TLS 1.3 has orphaned certain 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		(i.e., they are only applicable to version of (D)TLS protocol
	versions prior to 1.3), IANA is to:		versions prior to 1.3), IANA is to:
	o Add the following to the TLS Compression Method Identifiers		o Add the following to the TLS Compression Method Identifiers
	registry [RFC3749]:		registry [RFC3749]:
	Note: Value 0 (NULL) is the only value in this registry applicable		Note: Value 0 (NULL) is the only value in this registry applicable
	to (D)TLS protocol version 1.3 or later.		to (D)TLS protocol version 1.3 or later.
	o Add the following to the TLS Hash Algorithm [RFC5246] and TLS		o Add the following to the TLS HashAlgorithm [RFC5246] and TLS
	SignatureAlgorithm registries [RFC5246]:		SignatureAlgorithm registries [RFC5246]:
	Note: The values in this registry are only applicable to (D)TLS		Note: The values in this registry are only applicable to (D)TLS
	protocol versions prior to 1.3.		protocol versions prior to 1.3.
	o Update the "References" in the TLS Compression Method Identifiers,		o Update the "References" in the TLS Compression Method Identifiers,
	TLS Hash Algorithm [RFC5246] and TLS SignatureAlgorithm registries		TLS HashAlgorithm [RFC5246] and TLS SignatureAlgorithm registries
	to also refer to this document.		to also refer to this document.
	14. Security Considerations		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").
			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		The authors are fairly certain that there are no security
	considerations for this document.		considerations for this document.
	15. IANA Considerations		18. IANA Considerations
	This document is entirely about changes to TLS-related IANA		This document is entirely about changes to TLS-related IANA
	registries.		registries.
	16. References		19. References
	16.1. Normative References		19.1. Normative References
	[I-D.ietf-tls-tls13]		[I-D.ietf-tls-tls13]
	Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol		Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
	Version 1.3", draft-ietf-tls-tls13-18 (work in progress),		Version 1.3", draft-ietf-tls-tls13-19 (work in progress),
	October 2016.		March 2017.
	[RFC3749] Hollenbeck, S., "Transport Layer Security Protocol		[RFC3749] Hollenbeck, S., "Transport Layer Security Protocol
	Compression Methods", RFC 3749, DOI 10.17487/RFC3749, May		Compression Methods", RFC 3749, DOI 10.17487/RFC3749, May
	2004, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3749>.		2004, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc3749>.
	[RFC4680] Santesson, S., "TLS Handshake Message for Supplemental		[RFC4680] Santesson, S., "TLS Handshake Message for Supplemental
	Data", RFC 4680, DOI 10.17487/RFC4680, October 2006,		Data", RFC 4680, DOI 10.17487/RFC4680, October 2006,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4680>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc4680>.
	[RFC5077] Salowey, J., Zhou, H., Eronen, P., and H. Tschofenig,		[RFC5077] Salowey, J., Zhou, H., Eronen, P., and H. Tschofenig,
	skipping to change at page 10, line 44 ¶		skipping to change at page 12, line 48 ¶
	[RFC6655] McGrew, D. and D. Bailey, "AES-CCM Cipher Suites for		[RFC6655] McGrew, D. and D. Bailey, "AES-CCM Cipher Suites for
	Transport Layer Security (TLS)", RFC 6655,		Transport Layer Security (TLS)", RFC 6655,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC6655, July 2012,		DOI 10.17487/RFC6655, July 2012,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6655>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6655>.
	[RFC7301] Friedl, S., Popov, A., Langley, A., and E. Stephan,		[RFC7301] Friedl, S., Popov, A., Langley, A., and E. Stephan,
	"Transport Layer Security (TLS) Application-Layer Protocol		"Transport Layer Security (TLS) Application-Layer Protocol
	Negotiation Extension", RFC 7301, DOI 10.17487/RFC7301,		Negotiation Extension", RFC 7301, DOI 10.17487/RFC7301,
	July 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7301>.		July 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7301>.
	16.2. Informative References		19.2. Informative References
	[I-D.ietf-tls-rfc4492bis]		[I-D.ietf-tls-rfc4492bis]
	Nir, Y., Josefsson, S., and M. Pegourie-Gonnard, "Elliptic		Nir, Y., Josefsson, S., and M. Pegourie-Gonnard, "Elliptic
	Curve Cryptography (ECC) Cipher Suites for Transport Layer		Curve Cryptography (ECC) Cipher Suites for Transport Layer
	Security (TLS) Versions 1.2 and Earlier", draft-ietf-tls-		Security (TLS) Versions 1.2 and Earlier", draft-ietf-tls-
	rfc4492bis-09 (work in progress), October 2016.		rfc4492bis-16 (work in progress), March 2017.
	[RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an		[RFC2434] Narten, T. and H. Alvestrand, "Guidelines for Writing an
	IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 2434,		IANA Considerations Section in RFCs", RFC 2434,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC2434, October 1998,		DOI 10.17487/RFC2434, October 1998,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2434>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2434>.
	[RFC6961] Pettersen, Y., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS)		[RFC6961] Pettersen, Y., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS)
	Multiple Certificate Status Request Extension", RFC 6961,		Multiple Certificate Status Request Extension", RFC 6961,
	DOI 10.17487/RFC6961, June 2013,		DOI 10.17487/RFC6961, June 2013,
	<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6961>.		<http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc6961>.
End of changes. 35 change blocks.
	67 lines changed or deleted		170 lines changed or added
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.48. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/