IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com> Mon, 25 October 2021 14:24 UTC

Return-Path: <alexey.melnikov@isode.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 3C0F33A0905; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 07:24:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.429
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.429 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-3.33, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=isode.com
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 bhzYjhkdhQYO; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 07:24:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from waldorf.isode.com (waldorf.isode.com [62.232.206.188]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D79663A08DC; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 07:24:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; t=1635171846; d=isode.com; s=june2016; i=@isode.com; bh=dfktsGah2F8826c1E7owG8FLlVYM8SvFPqFW+6Jue2A=; h=From:Sender:Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version: In-Reply-To:References:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-ID:Content-Description; b=Ugdj8A0qTMYVnCdZrbdzF6FX28pjCb4Gww48X5eQx6wwOZpguKdA3LBa9ZXDfluH+DjpMh yTUSKFxJstk3PIHTKbEZdRC4xHHQpWafDgiOB95g9wEkyHZrSqJP5lfhmfPrhVIxSsjZYE 1hwtiD3Rtl0BJ5CKv24h6FxveP7x9pA=;
Received: from [192.168.1.222] (host5-81-100-13.range5-81.btcentralplus.com [5.81.100.13]) by waldorf.isode.com (submission channel) via TCP with ESMTPSA id <YXa-BQBc-bZs@waldorf.isode.com>; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 15:24:06 +0100
To: Sam Whited <sam@samwhited.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>
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> <61a39341-6249-4597-a13d-7c29c87df06a@www.fastmail.com>
From: Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>
Message-ID: <3a041599-bc74-02de-021f-53eb6b86371b@isode.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2021 15:23:53 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0
In-Reply-To: <61a39341-6249-4597-a13d-7c29c87df06a@www.fastmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-GB
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/kitten/7-Nl55gaCfQeOFE1ia-MXY7uZUA>
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 14:24:12 -0000

On 25/10/2021 15:21, Sam Whited wrote:

> I don't think RFC 7677 actually does define a mandatory-to- implement
> channel binding, or am I missing something?
It doesn't change the MTI "tls-unique" defined in RFC 5802. Your draft 
already updates RFC 5802, so I think it should similarly update RFC 7677.
> 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