Re: [MMUSIC] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-mmusic-4572-update-12: (with COMMENT)

Hi,

Ok, it seems like there is stronger preference for removing the text, and nobody has objected.

So, I will remove the text in the next version of the document.

Regards,

Christer

From: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com<mailto:roman@telurix.com>>
Date: Wednesday 1 February 2017 at 22:34
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com<mailto:christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>>
Cc: "alissa@cooperw.in<mailto:alissa@cooperw.in>" <alissa@cooperw.in<mailto:alissa@cooperw.in>>, Flemming Andreasen <fandreas@cisco.com<mailto:fandreas@cisco.com>>, "mmusic-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:mmusic-chairs@ietf.org>" <mmusic-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:mmusic-chairs@ietf.org>>, "draft-ietf-mmusic-4572-update@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-mmusic-4572-update@ietf.org>" <draft-ietf-mmusic-4572-update@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-mmusic-4572-update@ietf.org>>, "iesg@ietf.org<mailto:iesg@ietf.org>" <iesg@ietf.org<mailto:iesg@ietf.org>>, "mmusic@ietf.org<mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>" <mmusic@ietf.org<mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>>
Subject: Re: [MMUSIC] Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-mmusic-4572-update-12: (with COMMENT)

I am for removing the text.

_____________
Roman Shpount

On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com<mailto:christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>> wrote:
Does anyone object to deleting the text? Martin? Ekr? Roman? Cullen?

Regards,

Christer

-----Original Message-----
From: Alissa Cooper [mailto:alissa@cooperw.in<mailto:alissa@cooperw.in>]
Sent: 01 February 2017 22:15
To: Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com<mailto:christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>>
Cc: IESG <iesg@ietf.org<mailto:iesg@ietf.org>>; draft-ietf-mmusic-4572-update@ietf.org<mailto:draft-ietf-mmusic-4572-update@ietf.org>; Flemming Andreasen <fandreas@cisco.com<mailto:fandreas@cisco.com>>; mmusic-chairs@ietf.org<mailto:mmusic-chairs@ietf.org>; mmusic@ietf.org<mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Alissa Cooper's No Objection on draft-ietf-mmusic-4572-update-12: (with COMMENT)

> On Feb 1, 2017, at 3:04 PM, Christer Holmberg <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com<mailto:christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>> wrote:
>
> Hi Alissa,
>
> Thank you for your review! See below.
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> COMMENT:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>> Section 5.1 says:
>>
>> "An endpoint MAY, in addition to its more preferred hash function,
>> also verify that each certificate used matches fingerprints
>> calculated using other hash functions.  Unless there is a matching
>> fingerprint for each tested hash function, the endpoint MUST NOT
>> establish the TLS connection."
>>
>> This seems a little weird to me. It's up to the endpoint to decide
>> whether to check for errors, and then if it does find an error it
>> can't setup the connection, whereas if it just hadn't checked it would be able to setup the connection. I think it would help to explain why an endpoint would be motivated to check multiple fingerprints.
>
> I think the only use-case that came up was a situation where the receiver is not sure which hash function is the "strongest", and therefor checks multiple. However, it was also realized that with the multiple set of hash functions such situation is very unlikely to occur.
>
> So, I could add the following note:
>
> "NOTE: An endpoint might choose to match each used certificate against
> fingerprints calculated using multiple hash functions e.g, if the endpoint is unsure which hash function is the strongest."
>
> ...or we could simply delete the text. I personally would go for that, but in case others want to keep it I have no problem with that.

It would make more sense to me to delete it but either solution would be an improvement I think.

Thanks,
Alissa

>
> Regards,
>
> Christer
>
>

_______________________________________________
mmusic mailing list
mmusic@ietf.org<mailto:mmusic@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mmusic