Transport Layer Security (TLS) Cached Information Extension
draft-ietf-tls-cached-info-23
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2016-07-18
|
23 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48-DONE from AUTH48 |
2016-06-24
|
23 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to AUTH48 from RFC-EDITOR |
2016-06-20
|
23 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to RFC-EDITOR from EDIT |
2016-06-08
|
23 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor |
2016-06-07
|
23 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors |
2016-05-20
|
23 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2016-05-20
|
23 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress from Waiting on Authors |
2016-05-18
|
23 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress |
2016-05-18
|
23 | (System) | RFC Editor state changed to EDIT |
2016-05-18
|
23 | (System) | IESG state changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent |
2016-05-18
|
23 | (System) | Announcement was received by RFC Editor |
2016-05-17
|
23 | (System) | IANA Action state changed to In Progress |
2016-05-17
|
23 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed |
2016-05-17
|
23 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2016-05-17
|
23 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2016-05-17
|
23 | Amy Vezza | Ballot approval text was generated |
2016-05-17
|
23 | Amy Vezza | Ballot writeup was changed |
2016-05-11
|
23 | Hannes Tschofenig | New version available: draft-ietf-tls-cached-info-23.txt |
2016-01-26
|
22 | Stephen Farrell | Ballot writeup was changed |
2016-01-26
|
22 | Hannes Tschofenig | New version available: draft-ietf-tls-cached-info-22.txt |
2015-12-23
|
21 | Hannes Tschofenig | IANA Review state changed to Version Changed - Review Needed from IANA OK - Actions Needed |
2015-12-23
|
21 | Hannes Tschofenig | New version available: draft-ietf-tls-cached-info-21.txt |
2015-12-22
|
20 | Gunter Van de Velde | Closed request for Last Call review by OPSDIR with state 'No Response' |
2015-12-17
|
20 | Cindy Morgan | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement to be sent::Point Raised - writeup needed from IESG Evaluation |
2015-12-17
|
20 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot comment] Just a quick comment, sorry for asking this late and I won't hold up on it either, just want to raise the question … [Ballot comment] Just a quick comment, sorry for asking this late and I won't hold up on it either, just want to raise the question without quite enough time to research it all. I see the SHA-256 truncation is just 32 bits. In other applications, about half is what is typically recommended. I know you are trying to cut on space, but will problems arise from this shorter value? |
2015-12-17
|
20 | Kathleen Moriarty | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Kathleen Moriarty |
2015-12-17
|
20 | Alvaro Retana | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alvaro Retana |
2015-12-17
|
20 | Spencer Dawkins | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Spencer Dawkins |
2015-12-17
|
20 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot comment] The authors may wish to check Jouni Korhonen's Gen-ART review comments. I have not seen a response. |
2015-12-17
|
20 | Jari Arkko | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jari Arkko |
2015-12-16
|
20 | Jouni Korhonen | Request for Telechat review by GENART Completed: Ready. Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen. |
2015-12-16
|
20 | Joel Jaeggli | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Joel Jaeggli |
2015-12-16
|
20 | Alia Atlas | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Alia Atlas |
2015-12-16
|
20 | Deborah Brungard | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Deborah Brungard |
2015-12-16
|
20 | Benoît Claise | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Benoit Claise |
2015-12-16
|
20 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot comment] -section 4, paragraph 4: It might be helpful to have a little more guidance to clients for multi-tenant server environments. For example, the … [Ballot comment] -section 4, paragraph 4: It might be helpful to have a little more guidance to clients for multi-tenant server environments. For example, the fact that it might want to cache different certs from the same server in the first place. Also, when might it be reasonable to violate the RECOMMENDED? - 4.1: Should the reference for 7250 be normative? |
2015-12-16
|
20 | Ben Campbell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Ben Campbell |
2015-12-16
|
20 | Brian Haberman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Haberman |
2015-12-15
|
20 | Terry Manderson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Terry Manderson |
2015-12-15
|
20 | Sabrina Tanamal | IANA Review state changed to IANA OK - Actions Needed from IANA - Not OK |
2015-12-15
|
20 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot comment] I have two comments about Section 8.2: 1. The Standards Action range starts at 0, and you've assigned 1 and 2, but not … [Ballot comment] I have two comments about Section 8.2: 1. The Standards Action range starts at 0, and you've assigned 1 and 2, but not 0. Is it intended that 0 should remain reserved and unassigned? If so, you should say that. 2. For the Specification Required range, is there any guidance you can/should give to the designated expert? What do you expect the DE to look for when evaluating requests? Why might the DE not approve a request? |
2015-12-15
|
20 | Barry Leiba | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Barry Leiba |
2015-12-14
|
20 | Martin Stiemerling | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Martin Stiemerling |
2015-12-10
|
20 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Jouni Korhonen |
2015-12-10
|
20 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Telechat review by GENART is assigned to Jouni Korhonen |
2015-12-10
|
20 | Stephen Farrell | IESG state changed to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for Writeup |
2015-12-10
|
20 | Stephen Farrell | Ballot has been issued |
2015-12-10
|
20 | Stephen Farrell | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Stephen Farrell |
2015-12-10
|
20 | Stephen Farrell | Created "Approve" ballot |
2015-12-10
|
20 | Stephen Farrell | Ballot writeup was changed |
2015-12-10
|
20 | Stephen Farrell | Changed consensus to Yes from Unknown |
2015-12-04
|
20 | (System) | IESG state changed to Waiting for Writeup from In Last Call |
2015-12-02
|
20 | (System) | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Not OK from IANA - Review Needed |
2015-12-02
|
20 | Sabrina Tanamal | (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-tls-cached-info-20.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. IANA … (Via drafts-lastcall-comment@iana.org): IESG/Authors/WG Chairs: IANA has completed its review of draft-ietf-tls-cached-info-20.txt. If any part of this review is inaccurate, please let us know. IANA has a question about one of the actions requested in the IANA Considerations section of this document. IANA understands that, upon approval of this document, there are two actions which IANA must complete. First, in the ExtensionType Values subregistry of the Transport Layer Security (TLS) Extensions registry located at: http://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-extensiontype-values/ a single new value will be registered as follows: Value: [ TBD-at-registration ] Extension name: cached_info Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Second, a new registry is to be created called the TLS CachedInformationType values registry. IANA QUESTION -> Where should this new registry be located? Is it a néw registry on the IANA Matrix or is it a subregistry of an existing registry? If it is a subregistry of an existing registry, in which registry will it be contained? IANA understands that the registry maintenance rules for the new registry are as follows: 0-63 (decimal): Standards Action 64-223 (decimal): Specification Required 224-255 (decimal): reserved for Private Use There are initial registrations in the new registry as follows: Value: 1 Information Type: cert Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] Value: 2 Information Type: cert_req Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] IANA understands that these two actions are the only ones required to be completed upon approval of this document. IANA will not be able to complete the registry actions for this document until these issues have been resolved. Note: The actions requested in this document will not be completed until the document has been approved for publication as an RFC. This message is only to confirm what actions will be performed. Thank you, Sabrina Tanamal IANA Specialist ICANN |
2015-12-01
|
20 | Matthew Miller | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed: Has Nits. Reviewer: Matthew Miller. |
2015-11-30
|
20 | Jouni Korhonen | Request for Last Call review by GENART Completed: Ready with Nits. Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen. |
2015-11-29
|
20 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Sarah Banks |
2015-11-29
|
20 | Gunter Van de Velde | Request for Last Call review by OPSDIR is assigned to Sarah Banks |
2015-11-26
|
20 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Matthew Miller |
2015-11-26
|
20 | Tero Kivinen | Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Matthew Miller |
2015-11-24
|
20 | Stephen Farrell | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2015-12-17 |
2015-11-23
|
20 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Jouni Korhonen |
2015-11-23
|
20 | Jean Mahoney | Request for Last Call review by GENART is assigned to Jouni Korhonen |
2015-11-20
|
20 | Amy Vezza | IANA Review state changed to IANA - Review Needed |
2015-11-20
|
20 | Amy Vezza | The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: draft-ietf-tls-cached-info@ietf.org, joe@salowey.net, tls-chairs@ietf.org, tls@ietf.org, stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org … The following Last Call announcement was sent out: From: The IESG To: "IETF-Announce" CC: draft-ietf-tls-cached-info@ietf.org, joe@salowey.net, tls-chairs@ietf.org, tls@ietf.org, stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org Sender: Subject: Last Call: (Transport Layer Security (TLS) Cached Information Extension) to Proposed Standard The IESG has received a request from the Transport Layer Security WG (tls) to consider the following document: - 'Transport Layer Security (TLS) Cached Information Extension' as Proposed Standard The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2015-12-04. Exceptionally, comments may be sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. Abstract Transport Layer Security (TLS) handshakes often include fairly static information, such as the server certificate and a list of trusted certification authorities (CAs). This information can be of considerable size, particularly if the server certificate is bundled with a complete certificate chain (i.e., the certificates of intermediate CAs up to the root CA). This document defines an extension that allows a TLS client to inform a server of cached information, allowing the server to omit already available information. The file can be obtained via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-cached-info/ IESG discussion can be tracked via https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-cached-info/ballot/ No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D. RFC 4634 has been obsoleted by RFC 6234. We'll fix the reference later. |
2015-11-20
|
20 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to In Last Call from Last Call Requested |
2015-11-20
|
20 | Stephen Farrell | Last call was requested |
2015-11-20
|
20 | Stephen Farrell | Ballot approval text was generated |
2015-11-20
|
20 | Stephen Farrell | Ballot writeup was generated |
2015-11-20
|
20 | Stephen Farrell | IESG state changed to Last Call Requested from AD Evaluation |
2015-11-20
|
20 | Stephen Farrell | Last call announcement was changed |
2015-11-20
|
20 | Stephen Farrell | Last call announcement was generated |
2015-11-20
|
20 | Stephen Farrell | IESG state changed to AD Evaluation from Publication Requested |
2015-11-02
|
20 | Joseph Salowey | As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated … As required by RFC 4858, this is the current template for the Document Shepherd Write-Up. Changes are expected over time. This version is dated 24 February 2012. (1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard, Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)? Why is this the proper type of RFC? Is this type of RFC indicated in the title page header? This document is requested in standards track. The extension defined in the document is of general use. The document is identified as standards track. (2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections: Technical Summary This document defines an extension that allows a TLS client to inform a server of cached information, allowing the server to omit already available information. Working Group Summary This document has gone through a long working group process and many revisions. We believe the document has had sufficient review and is ready for publication. The TLS working group consensus around the document is not strong, as the main body of interest for this work is in the DICE group. Document Quality This document has had extensive review over a long period of time in the TLS working group. The document is a dependency of the DICE working group. Personnel Joseph Salowey is the document shepherd. The responsible AD is Stephen Farrell. (3) Briefly describe the review of this document that was performed by the Document Shepherd. If this version of the document is not ready for publication, please explain why the document is being forwarded to the IESG. The document shepherd has reviewed the document and believe it is ready for publication. (4) Does the document Shepherd have any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that have been performed? No (5) Do portions of the document need review from a particular or from broader perspective, e.g., security, operational complexity, AAA, DNS, DHCP, XML, or internationalization? If so, describe the review that took place. The document is about a security protocol. The TLS working group has reviewed it for security. In particular the way hashing of objects is done has been reviewed by the working group. (6) Describe any specific concerns or issues that the Document Shepherd has with this document that the Responsible Area Director and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those concerns here. No particular concerns (7) Has each author confirmed that any and all appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79 have already been filed. If not, explain why. No IPR is known or has been disclosed. (8) Has an IPR disclosure been filed that references this document? If so, summarize any WG discussion and conclusion regarding the IPR disclosures. No declaration has been filed. (9) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and agree with it? Much of the working group is not deeply interested in the document, however it has received significant review from key members of the working group. There is consensus to move the document forward. (10) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is publicly available.) No (11) Identify any ID nits the Document Shepherd has found in this document. (See https://www.ietf.org/tools/idnits/ and the Internet-Drafts Checklist). Boilerplate checks are not enough; this check needs to be thorough. NA (12) Describe how the document meets any required formal review criteria, such as the MIB Doctor, media type, and URI type reviews. NA (13) Have all references within this document been identified as either normative or informative? Yes (14) Are there normative references to documents that are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear state? If such normative references exist, what is the plan for their completion? NA (15) Are there downward normative references references (see RFC 3967)? If so, list these downward references to support the Area Director in the Last Call procedure. No (16) Will publication of this document change the status of any existing RFCs? Are those RFCs listed on the title page header, listed in the abstract, and discussed in the introduction? If the RFCs are not listed in the Abstract and Introduction, explain why, and point to the part of the document where the relationship of this document to the other RFCs is discussed. If this information is not in the document, explain why the WG considers it unnecessary. It does not change existing RFCs. (17) Describe the Document Shepherd's review of the IANA considerations section, especially with regard to its consistency with the body of the document. Confirm that all protocol extensions that the document makes are associated with the appropriate reservations in IANA registries. Confirm that any referenced IANA registries have been clearly identified. Confirm that newly created IANA registries include a detailed specification of the initial contents for the registry, that allocations procedures for future registrations are defined, and a reasonable name for the new registry has been suggested (see RFC 5226). New registries are defined and named appropriately (18) List any new IANA registries that require Expert Review for future allocations. Provide any public guidance that the IESG would find useful in selecting the IANA Experts for these new registries. Part of the "CachedInformationType" registry has the specification required policy. The guidance for this review: - document does not define a cached-info type that already exists. - document is well defined specification that allows for interoperability that is compatible with the usage of the extensions defined in this document - document provides guidance for an security considerations introduced by the new type (19) Describe reviews and automated checks performed by the Document Shepherd to validate sections of the document written in a formal language, such as XML code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc. NA |
2015-11-02
|
20 | Joseph Salowey | Responsible AD changed to Stephen Farrell |
2015-11-02
|
20 | Joseph Salowey | IETF WG state changed to Submitted to IESG for Publication from WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up |
2015-11-02
|
20 | Joseph Salowey | IESG state changed to Publication Requested |
2015-11-02
|
20 | Joseph Salowey | IESG process started in state Publication Requested |
2015-11-02
|
20 | Joseph Salowey | Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway cleared. |
2015-11-02
|
20 | Joseph Salowey | IETF WG state changed to WG Consensus: Waiting for Write-Up from Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead |
2015-11-02
|
20 | Joseph Salowey | Changed document writeup |
2015-11-02
|
20 | Joseph Salowey | Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway set. Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC cleared. |
2015-11-02
|
20 | Joseph Salowey | Changed document writeup |
2015-11-01
|
20 | Joseph Salowey | Changed document writeup |
2015-10-19
|
20 | Hannes Tschofenig | New version available: draft-ietf-tls-cached-info-20.txt |
2015-10-18
|
19 | Joseph Salowey | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC set. Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway cleared. |
2015-10-11
|
19 | Joseph Salowey | reviewing draft for any potential updates. |
2015-10-11
|
19 | Joseph Salowey | Tag Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway set. |
2015-10-11
|
19 | Joseph Salowey | IETF WG state changed to Waiting for WG Chair Go-Ahead from In WG Last Call |
2015-10-11
|
19 | Joseph Salowey | Changed document writeup |
2015-08-06
|
19 | Joseph Salowey | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2015-08-05
|
19 | Joseph Salowey | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC cleared. |
2015-03-23
|
19 | Hannes Tschofenig | New version available: draft-ietf-tls-cached-info-19.txt |
2015-03-08
|
18 | Hannes Tschofenig | New version available: draft-ietf-tls-cached-info-18.txt |
2014-11-13
|
17 | Hannes Tschofenig | New version available: draft-ietf-tls-cached-info-17.txt |
2014-08-19
|
16 | Joseph Salowey | Tag Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC set. |
2014-08-19
|
16 | Joseph Salowey | IETF WG state changed to WG Document from In WG Last Call |
2014-08-04
|
16 | Sean Turner | WGLC ends August 19, 2014. |
2014-08-04
|
16 | Sean Turner | IETF WG state changed to In WG Last Call from WG Document |
2014-05-21
|
16 | Sean Turner | Intended Status changed to Proposed Standard from None |
2014-02-14
|
16 | Hannes Tschofenig | New version available: draft-ietf-tls-cached-info-16.txt |
2014-01-14
|
15 | Sean Turner | Document shepherd changed to Joseph A. Salowey |
2013-10-17
|
15 | Hannes Tschofenig | New version available: draft-ietf-tls-cached-info-15.txt |
2013-03-28
|
14 | Hannes Tschofenig | New version available: draft-ietf-tls-cached-info-14.txt |
2012-09-12
|
13 | Hannes Tschofenig | New version available: draft-ietf-tls-cached-info-13.txt |
2012-07-16
|
12 | Hannes Tschofenig | New version available: draft-ietf-tls-cached-info-12.txt |
2011-12-26
|
11 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-tls-cached-info-11.txt |
2011-12-14
|
10 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-tls-cached-info-10.txt |
2011-01-12
|
11 | (System) | Document has expired |
2010-07-11
|
09 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-tls-cached-info-09.txt |
2010-04-20
|
08 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-tls-cached-info-08.txt |
2010-03-30
|
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-tls-cached-info-07.txt |
2010-03-30
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-tls-cached-info-06.txt |
2010-03-26
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-tls-cached-info-05.txt |
2010-03-25
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-tls-cached-info-04.txt |
2010-02-18
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-tls-cached-info-03.txt |
2009-09-15
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-tls-cached-info-02.txt |
2009-06-24
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-tls-cached-info-01.txt |
2009-06-09
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-ietf-tls-cached-info-00.txt |