Re: Zero padding
Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net> Wed, 24 September 2014 10:29 UTC
Return-Path: <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EEB1C1A6FB5 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 03:29:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.688
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.688 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9KahKQ-sWMG1 for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 03:29:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from frink.w3.org (frink.w3.org [128.30.52.56]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5066A1A6FCE for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 03:29:34 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1XWjn5-000352-GO for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 10:27:19 +0000
Resent-Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 10:27:19 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1XWjn5-000352-GO@frink.w3.org>
Received: from lisa.w3.org ([128.30.52.41]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1XWjml-00033u-Qi for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 10:26:59 +0000
Received: from mxout-08.mxes.net ([216.86.168.183]) by lisa.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <mnot@mnot.net>) id 1XWjmk-0004Og-Tr for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 10:26:59 +0000
Received: from [192.168.49.8] (unknown [194.168.195.98]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.mxes.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 331E6509B5; Wed, 24 Sep 2014 06:26:34 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnXZaXTXWeHgY9TBCkPtE9y=-53cye6J8xfqFzB4D03pmA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 11:26:32 +0100
Cc: Sean Turner <turners@ieca.com>, "Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)" <jsalowey@cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <30405A2A-CB41-4555-88FB-F7AB29010CA1@mnot.net>
References: <CABkgnnXZaXTXWeHgY9TBCkPtE9y=-53cye6J8xfqFzB4D03pmA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.86.168.183; envelope-from=mnot@mnot.net; helo=mxout-08.mxes.net
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.8
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-2.149, BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: lisa.w3.org 1XWjmk-0004Og-Tr c3c6922c8de781758746d75a637462c7
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Zero padding
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/30405A2A-CB41-4555-88FB-F7AB29010CA1@mnot.net>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/27210
X-Loop: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Resent-Sender: ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ietf-http-wg.w3.org>
List-Help: <http://www.w3.org/Mail/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:ietf-http-wg-request@w3.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Seems reasonable to me. Any further comment - especially (but not exclusively) from the TLS community? Regards, On 23 Sep 2014, at 5:43 pm, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote: > Regarding https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/issues/602 > > I draw your attention to > http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-agl-tls-padding-03#section-3, which > makes the same requirements on padding that the current draft does: > that is, must be zero, no requirements to enforce this at the receiver > (though servers MAY validate this, which is as effective as a MUST in > ensuring compliance). I hold that Adam and the numerous reviewers of > this draft from the TLS community collectively know more about this > than I could ever hope to, and suggest that we defer to their > collective judgment. > > I would like to close issue #602 with the single change included in > the following PR: > https://github.com/http2/http2-spec/pull/617 > -- Mark Nottingham http://www.mnot.net/
- Zero padding Martin Thomson
- Re: Zero padding Mark Nottingham
- Re: Zero padding Mark Nottingham