RE: [ietf-provreg] AD Review Comments: draft-hollenbeck-rfc4934bis-00
"Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com> Tue, 14 April 2009 11:34 UTC
Return-Path: <owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A94EA3A6840 for <ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Apr 2009 04:34:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.485
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.485 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.726, BAYES_05=-1.11, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IFkFjFhqIDcz for <ietfarch-provreg-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Apr 2009 04:34:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nic.cafax.se (nic.cafax.se [192.71.228.17]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B38123A6D3E for <provreg-archive@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Apr 2009 04:34:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nic.cafax.se (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n3EBF1rX021913 for <ietf-provreg-outgoing@nic.cafax.se>; Tue, 14 Apr 2009 13:15:01 +0200 (MEST)
Received: (from majordom@localhost) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11/Submit) id n3EBF039027840 for ietf-provreg-outgoing; Tue, 14 Apr 2009 13:15:01 +0200 (MEST)
X-Authentication-Warning: nic.cafax.se: majordom set sender to owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se using -f
Received: from peregrine.verisign.com (peregrine.verisign.com [216.168.239.74]) by nic.cafax.se (8.13.7/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n3EBExdn016573 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Tue, 14 Apr 2009 13:15:00 +0200 (MEST)
Received: from dul1wnexcn02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com (dul1wnexcn02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com [10.170.12.139]) by peregrine.verisign.com (8.13.6/8.13.4) with ESMTP id n3EB6i9G030044 for <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>; Tue, 14 Apr 2009 07:06:44 -0400
Received: from dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com ([10.170.12.134]) by dul1wnexcn02.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Tue, 14 Apr 2009 07:14:59 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C9BCF2.3F1B6534"
Subject: RE: [ietf-provreg] AD Review Comments: draft-hollenbeck-rfc4934bis-00
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 2009 07:14:58 -0400
Message-ID: <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF07029FD729@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
In-Reply-To: <C6092A3A.31E91%jgould@verisign.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [ietf-provreg] AD Review Comments: draft-hollenbeck-rfc4934bis-00
Thread-Index: Acm8NJmzYO33/ZvpQjq+pbJCVGlx1QATEQdWABw02xA=
References: <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF07029FD625@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <C6092A3A.31E91%jgould@verisign.com>
From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com>
To: "Gould, James" <JGould@verisign.com>, EPP Provreg <ietf-provreg@cafax.se>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 14 Apr 2009 11:14:59.0229 (UTC) FILETIME=[3F9F6CD0:01C9BCF2]
Sender: owner-ietf-provreg@cafax.se
Precedence: bulk
According to this reference: http://download.java.net/jdk7/docs/technotes/guides/security/jsse/JSSERe fGuide.html it should, but I can't confirm that it does. I'm reasonably certain that this is behavior that's typically buried in a toolkit instead of being implemented by an EPP developer, so perhaps that new text should be removed from the document. -Scott- ________________________________ From: Gould, James Sent: Monday, April 13, 2009 5:43 PM To: Hollenbeck, Scott; EPP Provreg Subject: Re: [ietf-provreg] AD Review Comments: draft-hollenbeck-rfc4934bis-00 Scott, We're implementing SSL using JSSE in our Java EPP SDK, but I'm not sure if JSSE sends a TLS_close_notify alert before the connection is closed. -- JG ------------------------------------------------------- James F. Gould Principal Software Engineer VeriSign Naming Services jgould@verisign.com Direct: 703.948.3271 Mobile: 703.628.7063 21345 Ridgetop Circle LS2-2-1 Dulles, VA 20166 Notice to Recipient: This e-mail contains confidential, proprietary and/or Registry Sensitive information intended solely for the recipient and, thus may not be retransmitted, reproduced or disclosed without the prior written consent of VeriSign Naming and Directory Services. If you have received this e-mail message in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or reply e-mail and destroy the original message without making a copy. Thank you. ________________________________ From: "Hollenbeck, Scott" <shollenbeck@verisign.com> Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2009 08:37:25 -0400 To: EPP Provreg <ietf-provreg@cafax.se> Subject: [ietf-provreg] AD Review Comments: draft-hollenbeck-rfc4934bis-00 Some feedback from Alexey on the new TLS Usage Profile text in 4934bis. I now need implementer feedback. >> A client MUST close the associated TLS connection if the connection >> is not expected to deliver any EPP messages later. It MUST send a >> TLS close_notify alert before closing the connection. >> > As an implementor I remain skeptical that existing implementations do > that. At least I doubt many IMAP or SMTP servers do that. So maybe you > should check how existing EPP implementations handle connection closure. What are you implementers doing? > I think the text about how to extract and verify domain information from > X.509 certificates is still missing from your draft. I think that what > Chris wanted you to do and I am in agreement with him on this. > I see some text on this in Section 8, but I think it is a bit too short. > Check section 2.2.1 of draft-ietf-sieve-managesieve-09.txt. It probably > contains 80% of what EPP should use. Comments, please. I've sent a note to Alexey pushing back on this because (in my opinion) this puts mandates on client and server certificate validation behavior that don't affect EPP interoperability. If I'm wrong, I'd prefer to cite an existing mature reference instead of cloning text from an unapproved I-D. Does anybody know of one? -Scott-
- [ietf-provreg] AD Review Comments: draft-hollenbe… Hollenbeck, Scott
- Re: [ietf-provreg] AD Review Comments: draft-holl… James Gould
- RE: [ietf-provreg] AD Review Comments: draft-holl… Hollenbeck, Scott
- Re: [ietf-provreg] AD Review Comments: draft-holl… Patrick Mevzek
- Re: [ietf-provreg] AD Review Comments: draft-holl… Patrick Mevzek
- Re: [ietf-provreg] AD Review Comments: draft-holl… James Gould