IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Discussion of 9.2.2

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Thu, 25 September 2014 17:09 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 3AD401A872E for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 10:09:08 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.465
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.465 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_32=0.6, 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 NUy6ajSLkMiq for <ietfarch-httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 10:09:07 -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 003ED1A8722 for <httpbisa-archive-bis2Juki@lists.ietf.org>; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 10:09:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from lists by frink.w3.org with local (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ietf-http-wg-request@listhub.w3.org>) id 1XXCVD-0000TB-PB for ietf-http-wg-dist@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 17:06:47 +0000
Resent-Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 17:06:47 +0000
Resent-Message-Id: <E1XXCVD-0000TB-PB@frink.w3.org>
Received: from maggie.w3.org ([128.30.52.39]) by frink.w3.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ekr@rtfm.com>) id 1XXCUt-0000Ps-V1 for ietf-http-wg@listhub.w3.org; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 17:06:28 +0000
Received: from mail-wi0-f179.google.com ([209.85.212.179]) by maggie.w3.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_ARCFOUR_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <ekr@rtfm.com>) id 1XXCUp-0001Zz-7C for ietf-http-wg@w3.org; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 17:06:27 +0000
Received: by mail-wi0-f179.google.com with SMTP id d1so9935320wiv.6 for <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 10:05:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=R1dU2WTtKlAr+I1ZM/eqjFAi7lgggLiEMgapsXepRRk=; b=JP++NgF+6dDYAM83xe5b/Tkg1k3defmgmtiQfg96WMdlnQLtZGo0t/MGHDYBQPd5Dw gocCDnIRx4/q7OsS+S33Xbkrz1Oz7ag7HRTpiAXlgnN+EB9gyZU2RnE0RYQ0B3vonAes HwxZuGx+/tP2U31PATGCV/Z6GepKmAKKSWrS5uoZUMddXtBitQFQuo/63ZtjjUlzn8bf 8XleibqwfEILAilOZxljXCZDBKcf0BoY9fk2V3mGhzqpGfWoS6fXgqhdhk+JNqsuNdKD 67RV1vLZYgB4LNfimKS7CvPy8PqgiZfOfyf+XTJI+rfPziO5URckQ39l8XZvWpkdpZXf YM0g==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkciNoOWouFezTvBnKRtx52aixIT0siJUZaxfQYTpGZtxmds44bmAkJ49RmhXlOPQsiGabQ
X-Received: by 10.180.184.20 with SMTP id eq20mr40026600wic.61.1411664756607; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 10:05:56 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.27.176.100 with HTTP; Thu, 25 Sep 2014 10:05:16 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAH_y2NHCXamQrPQZyezkJ-NSZUPTdqjbyTDNufbJSiQ1q_QMjg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <F0D4BA2A-46B2-4F1A-8A23-1A319A3E5FC0@mnot.net> <CABkgnnV0HFeshNAe9CAzFDeED6Os_GmG6kxm827N18wduCkjiA@mail.gmail.com> <CAH_y2NFu=kyTVK_neACEVyWp9m4wfLOUu-=Dc9nZoMhP+fNSsg@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBMOqi+5LFzf1MmQuuW+4O7Pmvky68riNqtJDcbzQnvQig@mail.gmail.com> <CAH_y2NHCXamQrPQZyezkJ-NSZUPTdqjbyTDNufbJSiQ1q_QMjg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 10:05:16 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBO46e9TpL_kksL5khPx0zbHv0Y3ZD1kp9ka8tzbMf5yhg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com>
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Mark Nottingham <mnot@mnot.net>, HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c3536a5c192c0503e6d08c"
Received-SPF: none client-ip=209.85.212.179; envelope-from=ekr@rtfm.com; helo=mail-wi0-f179.google.com
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.8
X-W3C-Hub-Spam-Report: AWL=-3.100, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7
X-W3C-Scan-Sig: maggie.w3.org 1XXCUp-0001Zz-7C a525ff91ec6daa4462ad58521b68acf9
X-Original-To: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
Subject: Re: Discussion of 9.2.2
Archived-At: <http://www.w3.org/mid/CABcZeBO46e9TpL_kksL5khPx0zbHv0Y3ZD1kp9ka8tzbMf5yhg@mail.gmail.com>
Resent-From: ietf-http-wg@w3.org
X-Mailing-List: <ietf-http-wg@w3.org> archive/latest/27237
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>

On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 9:52 AM, Greg Wilkins <gregw@intalio.com> wrote:

>
> Eric,
>
> Thanks for that clarification.  I think that explains much of the(my?)
> confusion about 9.2.2.
>
> I think this indicates that the wording of 9.2.2 is indeed causing
> confusion and has actually created wrong implementations.   In FF the 9.2.2
> test is currently implemented as:
>
>    isAEAD()
>
> when it should be:
>
>    !isBlock() && !isStream()
>
> The former is a interoperability problem for future acceptable non AEAD
> ciphers, while the later is not.
>

Trying to think this through....

Isn't that only true if we add a new non-AEAD ciphersuite in NSS and then
forget
to update the code in Firefox?

-Ekr

v2.46.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status