wdiff IANAreg-notes.txt rfc8447-notesonly.txt

-- notes only; copied from www.iana.org 2018-08-07 only 2018-08-08

7. TLS ExtensionType Values

Note

Note: As specified in [RFC8126], assignments made in the Private Use
space are not generally useful for broad interoperability. It is
the responsibility of those making use of the Private Use range to
ensure that no conflicts occur (within the intended scope of use).
For widespread experiments, temporary reservations are available.

Note

Note: If an item is not marked as Recommended "Recommended", it does not
necessarily mean that it is flawed; rather, it indicates that
either the
item either has not been through the IETF consensus process, has
limited applicability, or is intended only for specific use cases.

Note

The following extensions are only applicable to (D)TLS
protocol versions prior to 1.3: trusted_ca_keys, truncated_hmac,
user_mapping, cert_type, ec_point_formats, srp, status_request_v2,
encrypt_then_mac, extended_master_secret, session_ticket,
renegotiation_info, client_certificate_url, client_authz,
server_authz, and cached_info. These extensions are not
applicable to (D)TLS 1.3.

8. TLS Cipher Suites Registry

Note

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

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, ciphers and hash function, and
cannot be used for TLS 1.2. Similarly, TLS 1.2 and lower cipher
suite values cannot be used with TLS 1.3.

Note

Note: CCM_8 cipher suites are not marked as Recommended. "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

9. TLS Supported Groups

Note

Renamed from "EC Named Curve Registry"

Note

WARNING: Cryptographic algorithms and parameters will be broken or
weakened over time. Blindly implementing cryptographic algorithms supported groups listed
here is not advised. Implementers and users need to check that
the cryptographic algorithms listed continue to provide the
expected level of security.

10. TLS ClientCertificateType Identifiers

-- Currently there are zero notes on
https://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-parameters/tls-parameters.xhtml#tls-parameters-2

12. TLS Exporter Labels Registry

Note

(1) These entries are reserved and MUST NOT be used for

Note: The role of the
purpose designated expert is described in [RFC5705], in order RFC 8447.
The designated expert [RFC8126] ensures that the specification is
publicly available. It is sufficient to avoid confusion
with similar, have an Internet-Draft
(that is posted and never published as an RFC) or a document from
another standards body, industry consortium, university site, etc.
The expert may provide more in-depth reviews, but distinct use their approval
should not be taken as an endorsement of the identifier.

Note: As specified in [RFC5246].

Note [RFC8126], assignments made in the Private Use
space are not generally useful for broad interoperability. It is
the responsibility of those making use of the Private Use range to
ensure that no conflicts occur (within the intended scope of use).
For widespread experiments, temporary reservations are available.

12. TLS Exporter Labels Registry

Note: [RFC5705] defines keying material exporters for TLS in terms
of the TLS PRF. [RFC-ietf-tls-tls13-28] [RFC8446] replaced the PRF with HKDF, thus
requiring a new construction. The exporter interface remains the same, however
same; however, the value is computed differently.

Note

Note: The role of the designated expert is described in
[RFC-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates-05]. RFC 8447.
The designated expert [RFC8126] ensures that the specification is
publicly available. An
Internet Draft that It is sufficient to have an Internet-Draft
(that is posted and never published as an RFC) or a standard in document from
another standards body, industry consortium, university site, etc.
suffices.
The expert may provide more in depth in-depth reviews, but their approval
should not be taken as an endorsement of the exporter. exporter label. 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

14. TLS Certificate Types

Note

15. Orphaned Extensions

-- TLS ExtensionType Values registry:

Note

Note: The following extensions are only applicable to (D)TLS
protocol versions prior to 1.3: trusted_ca_keys, truncated_hmac,
user_mapping, cert_type, ec_point_formats, srp, status_request_v2,
encrypt_then_mac, extended_master_secret, session_ticket,
renegotiation_info, client_certificate_url, client_authz,
server_authz, and cached_info. These extensions are not
applicable to (D)TLS 1.3.

16. Orphaned Registries

-- TLS Compression Method Identifiers registry [RFC3749]:

Note

Note: Value 0 (NULL) is the only value in this registry applicable
to (D)TLS protocol version 1.3 or later.

-- TLS HashAlgorithm [RFC5246]

Note

Note: The values in this registry are only applicable to (D)TLS
protocol versions prior to 1.3. (D)TLS 1.3 and later versions'
values are registered in the TLS SignatureScheme registry.

-- and the same on in TLS SignatureAlgorithm registries [RFC5246]:

Note

Note: The values in this registry are only applicable to (D)TLS
protocol versions prior to 1.3. (D)TLS 1.3 and later versions'
values are registered in the TLS SignatureScheme registry.

-- TLS ClientCertificateType Identifiers registry [RFC5246]:

-- Currently there are zero notes on

Note: The values in this registry. registry are only applicable to (D)TLS
protocol versions prior to 1.3.

-- the TLS HashAlgorithm

Note

WARNING: Cryptographic algorithms and parameters will be broken or
weakened over time. Blindly implementing the cryptographic
algorithms listed here is not advised. Implementers and users
need to check that the cryptographic algorithms listed continue to
provide the expected level of security.

-- and the same on in TLS SignatureAlgorithm

Note

17. Additional Notes

-- TLS SignatureScheme registry:

Note

WARNING: Cryptographic algorithms and parameters will be broken or
weakened over time. Blindly implementing cryptographic algorithms signature schemes 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

-- TLS PskKeyExchangeMode registry:

Note