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 17:28 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 558E73A096F; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 10:28:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.12
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.12 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_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, 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=DXKU8ckW; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=asrVhbDX
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 LImqc5bUSjL7; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 10:28:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D6D823A0942; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 10:28:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E15F5C0206; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 13:28:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from imap42 ([10.202.2.92]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Mon, 25 Oct 2021 13:28:07 -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=pU 3SrCMkdsACXPeRKTptFThImpqdfjkOD0CeFwxNUJ8=; b=DXKU8ckWqoK0L/bxw8 4QN9kA7bfeAcZ7uVQbfA6LacGxskAZhPF9mBQBdppPwvpm3BWFxTKeaXd0aK39Zu fjtR2o+3fg2/Cuag+YwgpTx8nW/yVXPyHVDcx8vUyQBRG86aIqAUE3V7y3ZepTS/ zcd6NAee33R5J8wEsCw1+hu4MwWFAbZOgVvpRLp8OJc2DmvJ2qoposUCPj5pprjJ 2SkZAemERoO5w7xEqeIMtdR/2OavvP4VWur2V3lVbFLKZEzxREQjLSj0cdGcLmGo US+poXtuxshGvJ1Y4iNx2a5rTc1co3N0gj+MBMzzjOOrWLnejCOhtBxNgx54zuvY KuEQ==
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=pU3SrCMkdsACXPeRKTptFThImpqdfjkOD0CeFwxNU J8=; b=asrVhbDXGzSrJxwG0DWLuPZrM3egYleMYpagbw7xH643iFaaMQTzFRP3B ihbbeagZpLNkFuRYDnvfFxReRXK2CmIKzxse2K/Rj+x5My1wTcRw4CCJVO+BJ9h8 odXc7QzDLR0aw3fDceN9sjm6jx0bO/yWPouYsSNvh3TaEjTC5KhEldl202PEZD0h s9TgfA96lGXiVCl1WkD2Ke7mhI4QwBQ+OKmkZDcRYkrs862cz02GCezKoiAiQOti 1XK9r+Z7k2DDCWSG4rDOAsxfukMMom1T5Srx+8OqyXSVvPEltLzYLwSKAldvvyQu 9gVk3VRzqMM+v/+EAlnLZGlJS3Gow==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:J-l2YZ59e5cYKj752BAyf4Bev_awmHi8M9J3BrAjy_pHP9YEN2n_0A> <xme:J-l2YW6MDox3asOBtUISwp9_6gnRL5rjcrfEVkybTjQX1_pwKJ4OHMDZnDoUWZTgM g7XRwEyJpLhAMiHBw>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvtddrvdefhedguddtlecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpefofgggkfgjfhffhffvufgtgfesthhqredtreerjeenucfhrhhomhepfdfu rghmucghhhhithgvugdfuceoshgrmhesshgrmhifhhhithgvugdrtghomheqnecuggftrf grthhtvghrnhepvdffuedvudfhfedvieehueekfffhkeejvefggfegtdelhffhhfeiveek udevhfejnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomh epshgrmhesshgrmhifhhhithgvugdrtghomh
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:J-l2YQf3JIXV4FvVzgKFZ4QJTi7E_t_alep1YaPdyysVtABV7sO5yw> <xmx:J-l2YSLkBPjS7mZw3drtIiKPoCl2hBMcx9dQTn5vkQOHhvp2BikiOQ> <xmx:J-l2YdJypwb2PpY1wPJaY3cLURo_tC4RPjGYzcQ_ej6WsjsaNqPQ3w> <xmx:J-l2YUVIC5_sJ1w-oighoWY8kETlBMSCWXEJ2HlsgsIOemWT5Kv4xw>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 1DBA02180085; Mon, 25 Oct 2021 13:28:07 -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: <9cc8a70d-367a-454f-92ef-da192ee976f5@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <3a041599-bc74-02de-021f-53eb6b86371b@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> <61a39341-6249-4597-a13d-7c29c87df06a@www.fastmail.com> <3a041599-bc74-02de-021f-53eb6b86371b@isode.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2021 13:27:46 -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/c60XypH0K9BPxw9NzSMtvdGCI8Q>
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 17:28:16 -0000

I see; that makes sense. An update has been submitted; thanks!

—Sam

On Mon, Oct 25, 2021, at 10:23, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> 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?

-- 
Sam Whited

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email