IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] Two Opaque Values in Renegotiation_Info (was Re: webex)

Eric Rescorla <ekr@networkresonance.com> Sun, 15 November 2009 23:45 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@networkresonance.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 535183A6A33 for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Nov 2009 15:45:33 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.153
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.153 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_HOST_EQ_D_D_D_DB=0.888, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_PBL=0.905, RDNS_DYNAMIC=0.1]
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 QyZuamdnd+N4 for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 15 Nov 2009 15:45:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from genesis-hsia.quadriga-www.com (2.26.235.80.sta.estpak.ee [80.235.26.2]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4FB833A6A22 for <tls@ietf.org>; Sun, 15 Nov 2009 15:45:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.12.187] (helo=kilo.networkresonance.com) by genesis-hsia.quadriga-www.com with esmtp (Exim 3.34 #1) id 1N9ocd-00059Q-00 for tls@ietf.org; Mon, 16 Nov 2009 01:35:07 +0200
Received: from kilo.local (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kilo.networkresonance.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D241969F840; Mon, 16 Nov 2009 01:36:22 +0200 (EET)
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 2009 01:36:22 +0200
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@networkresonance.com>
To: Bodo Moeller <bmoeller@acm.org>
In-Reply-To: <54186B27-2E2C-4DCD-B8C5-7239FBABB631@acm.org>
References: <4AFC5D80.2030101@pobox.com> <AC1CFD94F59A264488DC2BEC3E890DE5091A715F@xmb-sjc-225.amer.cisco.com> <4AFD91D1.7030409@pobox.com> <4AFDB8DF.4010608@pobox.com> <20091113231013.8676669F516@kilo.networkresonance.com> <54186B27-2E2C-4DCD-B8C5-7239FBABB631@acm.org>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.15.5 (Almost Unreal) Emacs/22.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI)
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Message-Id: <20091115233622.D241969F840@kilo.networkresonance.com>
Cc: tls@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [TLS] Two Opaque Values in Renegotiation_Info (was Re: webex)
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: Sun, 15 Nov 2009 23:45:33 -0000

At Sun, 15 Nov 2009 11:58:15 -0800,
Bodo Moeller wrote:
> 
> On Nov 13, 2009, at 3:10 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> 
> > At Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:51:59 -0800,
> > Michael D'Errico wrote:
> 
> >> I noticed in the logs that there was discussion of wanting to
> >> have two separate opaque values, I assume one for the client
> >> verify data and the other for the server verify data.
> 
> > As far as I know this is not being actively considered.
> 
> There's no point in having these two values sent in the same message.   
> Using two fields would break backwards compatibility with draft- 
> rescorla-tls-renegotiation-00.txt -- but backwards compatibility with  
> this would be the only reason to keep the client's verify_data in the  
> server's extension.

I could certainly live with this if the TLS WG wanted to change it.
I don't know how the implementors feel about it.

-Ekr

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email