IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [kitten] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-kitten-tls-channel-bindings-for-tls13-09

Sam Whited <sam@samwhited.com> Mon, 25 October 2021 14:22 UTC

Return-Path: <sam@samwhited.com>
X-Original-To: kitten@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: kitten@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF9D93A08B6; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 07:22:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.101
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.101 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=samwhited.com header.b=DelpiQmJ; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=ZFVCIFzQ
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 tZ4LzjgJMi2p; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 07:21:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out3-smtp.messagingengine.com (out3-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F18933A0653; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 07:21:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 23DD55C022B; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 10:21:56 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from imap42 ([10.202.2.92]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 25 Oct 2021 10:21:56 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=samwhited.com; h=mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:from:to :cc:subject:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=fm1; bh=r2 UEWSGjd/ET7ZP1FZF4DtqIQ0+0j2SARQ7dr1sA7ns=; b=DelpiQmJHZr0m4a0VG ZR7B30V6eM5GHoMm3C626BkDi6d86pqJqdMJrd2FvD9TsjKs7GPICwXYD9n2MQTj x7m135giyRmGjUaFdW5nWS2jmppEeZ3leXPPc647oUBr8hSlr1Lu0DkSBo2GxIoq T5Ud44W/ry+q3Gl0fbo5cZh2+mPeXgKVVGY5QyowYReBQCERNbqVFlxbU0Xblcc0 cJjQMLU78GF4Dk7sWASjFnKI5w+mR7ZBwj1BF97DIVv+qpEOotB3gU2ZDX8GZt0y p2bnkTUxqoBiaLtdejdWnz7TT+P+yTZk5H45gQK6Qv++KfqbvriX0+uC4+YuM31S nISA==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=r2UEWSGjd/ET7ZP1FZF4DtqIQ0+0j2SARQ7dr1sA7 ns=; b=ZFVCIFzQJLtqyrQZossjQbd5XkR/jD2sn8Y1ToKJC9X/p178LuLfTesFd lWHxeaGvWumb8cotRZalMvbAlNHttIz0jweFlt2b28WjvEd4e3K2Qig7WT3Sh/j4 RWpu+9VgCgdd1lC0ctG/yIr0Q7XZr2xwNcMB0/pwaXHtl4aidrR0+tKfv6Wn8m/G W2nf77umYoPSxEFOz26IUP5YkHRiXwW0YK/+QVIxN7WMJYTtlLWNaZR5G4Fyw94j 8wjKrJbaLSm0BOhSSzuwWNu5c63gpj+nQGO2QMVPg6wCJhpRMI9y7OjVEqsC82yV jUfGWEm9/rra9aB0wfdasn96w8pvA==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:g712YR3OFTXHNpiMJKNaocTrqK40ooDKn6FX2FIuWNdPlmkHJg-5ZQ> <xme:g712YYHsKKKEk8KuuAV3X70JuH3ziEshAMI91wDTBNcpAT7HS9p7RSORwMt5tYL7G XPyAv48DiBjYWn7NA>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvtddrvdefhedgjedvucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnhhtshculddquddttddmne cujfgurhepofgfggfkjghffffhvffutgfgsehtqhertderreejnecuhfhrohhmpedfufgr mhcuhghhihhtvggufdcuoehsrghmsehsrghmfihhihhtvggurdgtohhmqeenucggtffrrg htthgvrhhnpedvffeuvdduhfefvdeiheeukeffhfekjeevgffggedtlefhhffhieevkedu vefhjeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpe hsrghmsehsrghmfihhihhtvggurdgtohhm
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:g712YR7xNKw9PEiWIzlbfmI4h7Diid_2eDP_1ahz3xv2M1B7P_pFCA> <xmx:g712Ye0Jt3Nf0QB6xtevDri5mq7n9-TYrRz9ZBxQSd0oKmmo79PzDA> <xmx:g712YUHsmaAAVldMs4yz2PcEoT3qoPiPTBKMCBegQWjw50WPbH-6Ig> <xmx:hL12YZTgw47l6FJwnK7DLimqRyulgVQTiTJg2FntP_uLHtjoIwRfOg>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id C7BB72180085; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 10:21:55 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.5.0-alpha0-1369-gd055fb5e7c-fm-20211018.002-gd055fb5e
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <61a39341-6249-4597-a13d-7c29c87df06a@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <3e31bd21-372a-a154-3863-61ec62250c54@isode.com>
References: <163415374625.30942.884569969141527344@ietfa.amsl.com> <PR3P193MB1070CF0B74981CAF46C38739F9B89@PR3P193MB1070.EURP193.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM> <76baf740-44ac-48c9-8c78-bd36fcb5ee48@www.fastmail.com> <3e31bd21-372a-a154-3863-61ec62250c54@isode.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2021 10:21:35 -0400
From: "Sam Whited" <sam@samwhited.com>
To: "Alexey Melnikov" <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>, "Ludovic BOCQUET" <ludo_bocquet@hotmail.com>
Cc: "KITTEN Working Group" <kitten@ietf.org>, "last-call@ietf.org" <last-call@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-kitten-tls-channel-bindings-for-tls13.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-kitten-tls-channel-bindings-for-tls13.all@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/kitten/3616WaO3HK5K-JsdSIgy19FWado>
Subject: Re: [kitten] Opsdir last call review of draft-ietf-kitten-tls-channel-bindings-for-tls13-09
X-BeenThere: kitten@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Common Authentication Technologies - Next Generation <kitten.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/kitten>, <mailto:kitten-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/kitten/>
List-Post: <mailto:kitten@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:kitten-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/kitten>, <mailto:kitten-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2021 14:22:02 -0000

I don't think RFC 7677 actually does define a mandatory-to- implement
channel binding, or am I missing something? If it does, that would make
sense as a good reason to update it.

—Sam

On Mon, Oct 25, 2021, at 09:44, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> As RFC 7677 only specifies use of "tls-unique" as mandatory-to-
> implement, I agree that it should be updated to point to your draft.
>> Maybe you could propose some text for how you think it updates 7677
>> or where you think a reference to 7677 would be appropriate and that
>> would make things more clear?

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email