Subject: [Tls-reg-review] spelling change request in TLS Certificate Types registry

From: Benjamin Kaduk <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 13 Dec 2019 17:46:01 -0800

Hi all,

RFC 8446 deliberately changed the spelling for the TLS Certificate type
assigned value 0 (listed at
https://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-extensiontype-values/tls-extensiontype-values.xhtml#tls-extensiontype-values-3),
from "X.509" to "X509" (no dot).  This was done to improve the
compatibility of the protocol description language with automated
processing tools.  Since the name is not a protocol constant and merely a
descriptive mnemonic, I propose that we update the name listed in the
registry accordingly.  Adding [RFC8446] as a reference at the same time
also seems plausible.  Comments welcome!

Thanks,

Ben

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 02:35:34 +0000

wfm

On 12/13/19, 8:46 PM, "Benjamin Kaduk" <[email-masked]> wrote:

    Hi all,

    Thanks,
    
    Ben
    
    _______________________________________________
    tls-reg-review mailing list
    [email-masked]
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls-reg-review

---

From: Barry Leiba <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Dec 2019 09:48:04 -0500

No-brainer here, yes.  Process-wise, for completeness, I think we
should consider this to be an erratum in 8446, in that it neglected to
include an IANA action for this.  I think it makes sense to submit an
errata report to add it, mark that report as "verified", and ask IANA
to make the change.

Barry

---

From: "Amanda Baber via RT" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2019 22:55:56 +0000

Hi,

Should we wait to make the change until there's an errata report to refer to, or should we make the change now and refer to 8446?

thanks,
Amanda

On Sat Dec 14 14:48:53 2019, [email-masked] wrote:
> > https://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-extensiontype-values/tls-
> > extensiontype-values.xhtml#tls-extensiontype-values-3),

---

From: "Salz, Rich" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2019 14:01:52 +0000

I don't see a need to wait, but I don't see it as a big deal so whatever IANA prefers is fine with me.

On 12/16/19, 5:56 PM, "Amanda Baber via RT" <[email-masked]> wrote:

    Hi,

    thanks,
    Amanda

---

From: "Amanda Baber via RT" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2019 02:36:22 +0000

Hi,

We'll wait for the verified errata report and keep this ticket open in the meantime. 

thanks,
Amanda