Re: [TLS] SCSV vs RI when both specified. Was: Updated draft

Steve Checkoway <s@pahtak.org> Sat, 19 December 2009 23:20 UTC

Return-Path: <s@pahtak.org>
X-Original-To: tls@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB0CA3A69F8 for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 19 Dec 2009 15:20:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.385
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.385 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.215, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 zJBpzsDRyC2i for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 19 Dec 2009 15:20:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pw0-f50.google.com (mail-pw0-f50.google.com [209.85.160.50]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17B853A6980 for <tls@ietf.org>; Sat, 19 Dec 2009 15:20:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by pwi20 with SMTP id 20so2800198pwi.29 for <tls@ietf.org>; Sat, 19 Dec 2009 15:20:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.142.7.18 with SMTP id 18mr3561294wfg.126.1261264827357; Sat, 19 Dec 2009 15:20:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mb.pahtak.org (ip68-107-82-55.sd.sd.cox.net [68.107.82.55]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 20sm3714740pzk.5.2009.12.19.15.20.26 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Sat, 19 Dec 2009 15:20:26 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077)
From: Steve Checkoway <s@pahtak.org>
In-Reply-To: <90E934FC4BBC1946B3C27E673B4DB0E4A7EE85400B@LLE2K7-BE01.mitll.ad.local>
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 15:20:25 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <1312AA6E-DA71-444A-B6B4-2E8218F0035B@pahtak.org>
References: <90E934FC4BBC1946B3C27E673B4DB0E4A7EE85400B@LLE2K7-BE01.mitll.ad.local>
To: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1077)
Subject: Re: [TLS] SCSV vs RI when both specified. Was: Updated draft
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Dec 2009 23:20:46 -0000

On Dec 19, 2009, at 5:24 AM, Blumenthal, Uri - 0662 - MITLL wrote:

> You're saying it's not important whether the protocol spec demands aborting the connection or not?!  

As long as the spec is clear about what to do in that case (either abort or not), it doesn't really matter what the decision is. The code is about the same. The amount of testing is identical as far as I can tell.

> As long as the processing amount to arrive at the decision is about the same?

I don't know what this means.


-- 
Steve Checkoway