IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] Draft minutes for IETF-75 available

"Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)" <jsalowey@cisco.com> Mon, 03 August 2009 20:35 UTC

Return-Path: <jsalowey@cisco.com>
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 153063A67BD for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Aug 2009 13:35:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.548
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.548 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.051, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 iMWhussFhK+9 for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 Aug 2009 13:35:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 089F628C24C for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Aug 2009 13:34:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApoEANPmdkqrR7PE/2dsb2JhbAC7XogpjnMFhBg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.43,316,1246838400"; d="scan'208";a="222800916"
Received: from sj-dkim-4.cisco.com ([171.71.179.196]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 03 Aug 2009 20:34:19 +0000
Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com (sj-core-1.cisco.com [171.71.177.237]) by sj-dkim-4.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id n73KYJ4x025471; Mon, 3 Aug 2009 13:34:19 -0700
Received: from xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-211.cisco.com [171.70.151.144]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n73KYJYi026818; Mon, 3 Aug 2009 20:34:19 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-225.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.38]) by xbh-sjc-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Mon, 3 Aug 2009 13:34:19 -0700
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 2009 13:34:18 -0700
Message-ID: <AC1CFD94F59A264488DC2BEC3E890DE5087BCF21@xmb-sjc-225.amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <4A77429B.9080506@net.in.tum.de>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [TLS] Draft minutes for IETF-75 available
Thread-Index: AcoUdX0JBU+vCrS0Q4u54v5OsAFraAAA2GUQ
References: <mailman.77.1249326021.24683.tls@ietf.org> <4A77429B.9080506@net.in.tum.de>
From: "Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)" <jsalowey@cisco.com>
To: Gerhard Muenz <muenz@net.in.tum.de>, tls@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 03 Aug 2009 20:34:19.0626 (UTC) FILETIME=[C707DCA0:01CA1479]
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; l=969; t=1249331659; x=1250195659; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim4002; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=jsalowey@cisco.com; z=From:=20=22Joseph=20Salowey=20(jsalowey)=22=20<jsalowey@ci sco.com> |Subject:=20RE=3A=20[TLS]=20Draft=20minutes=20for=20IETF-75 =20available |Sender:=20; bh=Hcjm4ZDS6Ll6pOQAw3ui7jTtp/PRxyJy0dALyi9+h4M=; b=f6R6RdIPDj1nqh8cHTiIuo+FXdWVAjp0NCoAga0hjikLQMCmFXMsT9TDOs cF8lUTLqr3upZrJleC6lIyMpFR/cWrr7vT6evHCdk5tkhModsfOQthpI8zrG zdcoARXbVR;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-4; header.From=jsalowey@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com/sjdkim4002 verified; );
Subject: Re: [TLS] Draft minutes for IETF-75 available
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: Mon, 03 Aug 2009 20:35:07 -0000

Thanks Gerhard,

Minutes updated.   

Some questions below:

<snip> 
> Some thoughts about the proposal to solve Heartbeat at the 
> IPFIX layer (from me as a contributor to IPFIX):
> It is extremely unlikely that we will change the IPFIX 
> protocol from unidirectional to bidirectional just because 
> DTLS-over-UDP requires it.
> In my opinion, if we had to choose, it would be more likely 
> that we would update RFC5101 saying that DTLS is not required 
> any more for IPFIX-over-UDP implementations, and that the 
> usage of IPFIX-over-DTLS/UDP is not recommended because of 
> the dead peer detection problem.

[Joe] Is IPFIX defined over UDP without DTLS?  If so, would
IPFIX-over-UDP have a dead peer detection problem of its own?  

> IPFIX cannot reasonably deploy DTLS for UDP without the 
> proposed Heartbeat extension. The available workarounds are 
> not very nice.
> 


> Regards,
> Gerhard
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email