IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] Proposed text for dnsssec chain extension draft

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Thu, 26 April 2018 15:58 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.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 1B969126FDC for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Apr 2018 08:58:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.611
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.611 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_BL=0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_L4=3.6, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cryptonector.com
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 ZtoEQ-DBgjFE for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Apr 2018 08:58:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a90.g.dreamhost.com (homie-sub4.mail.dreamhost.com [69.163.253.135]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E6AF126DED for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Apr 2018 08:58:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a90.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a90.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B6E6DA004B83; Thu, 26 Apr 2018 08:58:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h=date :from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to; s=cryptonector.com; bh=GJUTZMqUd/6tcI uCAZrpnRcbhvM=; b=c5AAbhEob4jfw4YvLpGmiVhT2UfYMN62hlxwmVt1w80Kex 0b+lU9yUAbLF4nip0i4DV+3eevI3VXyURqvSrEuTIMxMI37cTlHK22yDjHBjDbRR e9+gLAdFeyYFZ1u3QSs2Myv6/Ll3CIvnnxQLlwCrAUwSFDkMVhYhtgWEMFtqg=
Received: from localhost (cpe-70-123-158-140.austin.res.rr.com [70.123.158.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a90.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EFD87A004B82; Thu, 26 Apr 2018 08:58:17 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2018 10:50:39 -0500
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Cc: TLS WG <tls@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20180426155038.GO25259@localhost>
References: <1D2EB7F1-B796-4459-93C2-443A7104F33A@dukhovni.org> <CABcZeBPNwBKqVLmNR=KqrxhwbxJZPs_-oK26XbK8oq1yRaS8eg@mail.gmail.com> <1EA85624-3A19-4EA3-9A2E-D1DE19414F8C@dukhovni.org> <CABcZeBOauDUGqTz6TCHemonWKEx91NtQmTw8cOfyU1D51+RODQ@mail.gmail.com> <20180426152206.GM25259@localhost> <CABcZeBMgyersPJNU-rCWjF0uGk36Yz87vunz+t9wyyYOk3Z=KA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBMgyersPJNU-rCWjF0uGk36Yz87vunz+t9wyyYOk3Z=KA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/4CpB-1igPs27CR6zzfS6YlRBeqQ>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Proposed text for dnsssec chain extension draft
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 26 Apr 2018 15:58:20 -0000

On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 08:41:18AM -0700, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 26, 2018 at 8:22 AM, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
> wrote:
> > Because we'd pin only to the use of this extension, the TTL is
> > sufficient.
> 
> I explained in my response to Victor why this isn't so.

I don't accept that explanation.  It's based on a strawman argument.

> > > But this reinforces my point. I think we ought to have an enforce vs
> > > test flag and a report URI (and I I don't find your arguments above
> > > about why we shouldn't do this persuasive.)  Standardizing this
> > > functionality would require resolving these issues.
> >
> > Strawman.  These are make-believe issues.  Is it just to give the
> > appearance that we couldn't possibly reach consensus on just two bytes?
> 
> This discussion would probably be a lot more productive if you were able to
> have it without accusing other participants of acting in bad faith.

Sounds good to me.  One way to make this more civil is to not make
strawman arguments.

Nico
--

v2.14.0 | Report a Bug | By Email