IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com> Tue, 22 December 2009 08:22 UTC

Return-Path: <ynir@checkpoint.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 C3ACC3A67CC for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Dec 2009 00:22:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.523
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.523 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.076, 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 JIzn8sbEko4n for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 22 Dec 2009 00:22:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dlpdemo.checkpoint.com (dlpdemo.checkpoint.com [194.29.32.54]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5E0F3A67C0 for <tls@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Dec 2009 00:22:09 -0800 (PST)
X-CheckPoint: {4B308087-10010-14201DC2-FFFF}
Received: by dlpdemo.checkpoint.com (Postfix, from userid 105) id 8DC4829C00A; Tue, 22 Dec 2009 10:21:52 +0200 (IST)
Received: from michael.checkpoint.com (michael.checkpoint.com [194.29.32.68]) by dlpdemo.checkpoint.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 74C8929C002; Tue, 22 Dec 2009 10:21:52 +0200 (IST)
X-CheckPoint: {4B308087-10000-14201DC2-FFFF}
Received: from il-ex01.ad.checkpoint.com (il-ex01.checkpoint.com [194.29.32.26]) by michael.checkpoint.com (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.10) with ESMTP id nBM8LqT7009291; Tue, 22 Dec 2009 10:21:52 +0200 (IST)
Received: from il-ex01.ad.checkpoint.com ([126.0.0.2]) by il-ex01.ad.checkpoint.com ([126.0.0.2]) with mapi; Tue, 22 Dec 2009 10:22:03 +0200
From: Yoav Nir <ynir@checkpoint.com>
To: Marsh Ray <marsh@extendedsubset.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 10:21:49 +0200
Thread-Topic: [TLS] SCSV vs RI when both specified. Was: Updated draft
Thread-Index: AcqC39d3wXNp3wJ5SRKHWJYJyuYCog==
Message-ID: <BA53741D-8774-41AD-91FF-0882DEAD3BD3@checkpoint.com>
References: <90E934FC4BBC1946B3C27E673B4DB0E4A7EE854013@LLE2K7-BE01.mitll.ad.local> <4B2FA22D.2090800@extendedsubset.com>
In-Reply-To: <4B2FA22D.2090800@extendedsubset.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
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: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 08:22:11 -0000

On Dec 21, 2009, at 6:28 PM, Marsh Ray wrote:

> Blumenthal, Uri - 0662 - MITLL wrote:
> 
>> If the
>> protocol spec demands aborting connection, it better have a damn good
>> reason to do so - and more substantive than "some Steve decided it
>> doesn't really matter to him if the peers connect or not".
> 
> How about "remote endpoint doesn't pass the bozo test"?

We do not discriminate against bozos.

Seriously, servers are there to communicate. Amazon or Google are not going to turn away customers because their browsers are a little off. That's why they agree to work in SSLv2.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email