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

That looks good to me. Please submit a new revision when you are ready.

Thanks!

Ben.

On 2 Feb 2017, at 6:49, Christer Holmberg wrote:

> Pull request: https://github.com/fluffy/4572bis/pull/14
>
> Regards,
>
> Christer
>
> From: Christer Holmberg 
> <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com<mailto:christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>>
> Date: Thursday 2 February 2017 at 13:43
> To: Roman Shpount <roman@telurix.com<mailto:roman@telurix.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)
> Resent-From: <alias-bounces@ietf.org<mailto:alias-bounces@ietf.org>>
> Resent-To: Christer Holmberg 
> <christer.holmberg@ericsson.com<mailto:christer.holmberg@ericsson.com>>, 
> Jonathan Lennox <jonathan@vidyo.com<mailto:jonathan@vidyo.com>>
> Resent-Date: Thursday 2 February 2017 at 13:43
>
> 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

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