Re: [TLS] A flags extension
Hubert Kario <hkario@redhat.com> Thu, 28 March 2019 13:54 UTC
Return-Path: <hkario@redhat.com>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A3161204D2 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Mar 2019 06:54:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id S13DafpkHEuw for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 28 Mar 2019 06:54:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B0921204D0 for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Mar 2019 06:54:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5BA89307E068; Thu, 28 Mar 2019 13:54:04 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pintsize.usersys.redhat.com (unknown [10.43.21.83]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AD4B8437F; Thu, 28 Mar 2019 13:54:03 +0000 (UTC)
From: Hubert Kario <hkario@redhat.com>
To: tls@ietf.org
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 14:54:02 +0100
Message-ID: <2095110.rQzEGthnPs@pintsize.usersys.redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <dcdcba29-9571-4747-880e-2aba9f649775@www.fastmail.com>
References: <A7EC005E-3463-406B-930F-925B4D2338E4@gmail.com> <8CCF5B81-9873-41AB-B062-AD109365A80A@gmail.com> <dcdcba29-9571-4747-880e-2aba9f649775@www.fastmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart3449075.hRGToHpW1S"; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.13
X-Greylist: Sender IP whitelisted, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.16 (mx1.redhat.com [10.5.110.42]); Thu, 28 Mar 2019 13:54:04 +0000 (UTC)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/3ujxhuf5s_OO_YOfKgMdd93kdCU>
Subject: Re: [TLS] A flags extension
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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/options/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Thu, 28 Mar 2019 13:54:28 -0000
On Wednesday, 27 March 2019 14:42:49 CET Martin Thomson wrote: > Why not go all in - make this a byte string and start from 0x80 in the first > byte. When we define the 9th flag, we add another byte. Then you have up > to 2040 flags (though it might pay to split the space before that). > > struct { > opaque<1..255> flags; > } Flags; > > Otherwise, the first adopter of this pays 10 bytes where they would > previously have paid 4. Obviously there is a network effect at the third. > Since I'm writing a draft that will aim to depend on this, I have a vested > interest in using this. this will be the only place with a bit mask in TLS, I have serious doubts about the correctness of code that will handle this stuff > If you wanted to make it more attractive to me, then maybe porting some of > the existing flags across might make it more appealing. what about making sure that the legacy and flags remain in-sync? we will have to send the legacy encoding for many years to come, so only thing it would possibly reduce the size of is ServerHello or EncryptedExtensions > On Wed, Mar 27, 2019, at 13:08, Yoav Nir wrote: > > > On 27 Mar 2019, at 12:26, Daniel Kahn Gillmor <dkg@fifthhorseman.net> > > > wrote:> > > > > On Wed 2019-03-27 10:52:20 +0100, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote: > > >> Right. What about defining a set of extensions (e.g., 2 extensions) of > > >> flags as: > > >> > > >> struct { > > >> > > >> uint64 flags; > > >> > > >> } Flags; > > > > > > If we're going to be doing this kind of bit-shaving, this is the way to > > > go, starting with a single CommonFlags extension -- and maybe even a > > > uint32 or uint16, with the bitfield registry under tight WG control. If > > > we exhaust that space, then we just define a CommonFlags2 extension. > > > > > > If someone wants an experimental boolean extension to play with, they > > > can always use an empty extension. They can apply for a bit in > > > CommonFlags if they find that the compactness is warranted. > > > > OK. You got me convinced. > > > > In the spirit of revising quickly and revising often, I’ve uploaded > > version -01: > > > > HTML: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-nir-tls-tlsflags > > DIFF: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-nir-tls-tlsflags-01 > > > > Yoav > > > > _______________________________________________ > > TLS mailing list > > TLS@ietf.org > > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls > > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list > TLS@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls -- Regards, Hubert Kario Senior Quality Engineer, QE BaseOS Security team Web: www.cz.redhat.com Red Hat Czech s.r.o., Purkyňova 115, 612 00 Brno, Czech Republic
- [TLS] A flags extension Yoav Nir
- Re: [TLS] A flags extension Salz, Rich
- Re: [TLS] A flags extension Martin Thomson
- Re: [TLS] A flags extension Salz, Rich
- Re: [TLS] A flags extension Yoav Nir
- Re: [TLS] A flags extension Tom Ritter
- Re: [TLS] A flags extension Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos
- Re: [TLS] A flags extension Yoav Nir
- Re: [TLS] A flags extension Nick Harper
- Re: [TLS] A flags extension Peter Gutmann
- Re: [TLS] A flags extension Yoav Nir
- Re: [TLS] A flags extension Hubert Kario
- Re: [TLS] A flags extension Yoav Nir
- Re: [TLS] A flags extension Hubert Kario
- Re: [TLS] A flags extension Yoav Nir
- Re: [TLS] A flags extension Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [TLS] A flags extension Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos
- Re: [TLS] A flags extension Daniel Kahn Gillmor
- Re: [TLS] A flags extension Yoav Nir
- Re: [TLS] A flags extension Martin Thomson
- Re: [TLS] A flags extension Eric Rescorla
- Re: [TLS] A flags extension Martin Thomson
- Re: [TLS] A flags extension Hubert Kario
- Re: [TLS] A flags extension Martin Thomson
- Re: [TLS] A flags extension John Mattsson
- Re: [TLS] A flags extension Martin Thomson
- Re: [TLS] A flags extension Yoav Nir
- Re: [TLS] A flags extension Hubert Kario
- Re: [TLS] A flags extension Martin Thomson
- Re: [TLS] A flags extension Hubert Kario
- Re: [TLS] A flags extension Christian Huitema
- Re: [TLS] A flags extension Hubert Kario