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

Paul Hoffman <> Thu, 27 January 2011 18:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AD153A69C6 for <>; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:43:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -101.743
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-101.743 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.303, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tTTYU59kfbqC for <>; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:43:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (Hoffman.Proper.COM []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB8323A6983 for <>; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:43:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from MacBook-08.local ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.4/8.14.3) with ESMTP id p0RIkmRW069044 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-CAMELLIA256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO) for <>; Thu, 27 Jan 2011 11:46:49 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 10:46:48 -0800
From: Paul Hoffman <>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv: Gecko/20101207 Thunderbird/3.1.7
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Subject: Re: [apps-discuss] For consideration as an appsawg document: draft-hoffman-server-has-tls-03.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: General discussion of application-layer protocols <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2011 18:43:46 -0000

On 1/25/11 11:11 PM, Patrik Fältström wrote:
> I have had a look at this, and have three questions:
> 1. Have I understood it correct if the client by using this RR can
> refuse to fall back to insecure connection for "communication using
> HTTP"? I.e. it seems the RR is specifying whether fallback is
> possible to not only per port, which works when you have "STARTTLS"
> or similar, but not when fallback is between ports?

The intention is to tell a client that could fall back, regardless of if 
it on the same port (STARTTLS) or between ports (443 to 80), that the 
server offers the non-secured option. I can try to make this clearer in 
a future draft.

> 2. If so, the "input" to the query should in that case be not only
> the hostname, but the protocol and hostname, right? So one could use
> a prefix-based mechanism like IN HASTLS 0 443
> 0

That might be good to do anyway. That is, having the query be in the 
same format as SRV queries, but with a HASTLS type, could give just the 
information wanted. The result could be an RRset with multiple HASTLS 

> 3. I am always a bit nervous over RDATA that has variable length. Do
> you have an implementation of this so that you have tried to ensure
> "it works"?

No, and I think that the above proposal might allay your fears.

> Otherwise, as someone said, overall negotiation I think is
> interesting.