Re: [apps-discuss] For consideration as an appsawg document: draft-hoffman-server-has-tls-03.txt

Benson Schliesser <bensons@queuefull.net> Fri, 28 January 2011 00:36 UTC

Return-Path: <bensons@queuefull.net>
X-Original-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABD513A6A0C for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 16:36:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Anl628JwIRq1 for <apps-discuss@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 16:36:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-yx0-f172.google.com (mail-yx0-f172.google.com [209.85.213.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C13433A6A08 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 16:36:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: by yxt33 with SMTP id 33so966577yxt.31 for <apps-discuss@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 16:39:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.101.168.12 with SMTP id v12mr1067298ano.111.1296175147330; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 16:39:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dhcp-171-70-244-184.cisco.com (dhcp-171-70-244-184.cisco.com [171.70.244.184]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id e24sm21049366ana.22.2011.01.27.16.39.02 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Thu, 27 Jan 2011 16:39:05 -0800 (PST)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Benson Schliesser <bensons@queuefull.net>
In-Reply-To: <4D41DECD.6090800@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 16:39:02 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <125235BD-7CCD-481A-9BFC-21BC0AEAA765@queuefull.net>
References: <4D33AC5F.3010609@vpnc.org> <AANLkTim5LpgqM5F2Zb_s+O4Jv8vrF+dcrnr3DpCMAJ6C@mail.gmail.com> <4D3EEE94.2090801@cisco.com> <4D41C56C.8060900@vpnc.org> <4D41DECD.6090800@cisco.com>
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
Cc: apps-discuss@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] For consideration as an appsawg document: draft-hoffman-server-has-tls-03.txt
X-BeenThere: apps-discuss@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <apps-discuss.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/apps-discuss>
List-Post: <mailto:apps-discuss@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/apps-discuss>, <mailto:apps-discuss-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2011 00:36:03 -0000

(sorry for resending my previous note, by accident...)

On Jan 27, 2011, at 1:08 PM, Eliot Lear wrote:

>>> 6.  Along these lines we should view this as an evolution of SRV.
>> 
>> Errr, just to be clear: are you proposing that this be an update to
>> RFC 2782? If so, please give a straw-man for how that would work. I
>> don't see how SRV records are extensible.
>> 
> 
> Were there a way to capture SRV functionality while offering the HASTLS
> capability, then we could deprecate SRV.  I would only recommend doing
> so, however, for a more generalized approach.  I think you're really
> quite close to this already, especially given your answer to Patrik
> (which I liked).

Of course, SRV could be deprecated if its capability is performed by the HASTLS mechanism.  But "service discovery" is one thing, and "TLS fallback indication" is another.  In terms of a more generalized approach, creating SRV++ would be a better way to think of the problem.

Cheers,
-Benson