IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] #445: Enhanced New Session Ticket

Ilari Liusvaara <ilariliusvaara@welho.com> Fri, 29 April 2016 18:33 UTC

Return-Path: <ilariliusvaara@welho.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 BBED212D519 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Apr 2016 11:33:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.996] 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 xmDxrh-Et59u for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 29 Apr 2016 11:33:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from welho-filter1.welho.com (welho-filter1.welho.com [83.102.41.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C5EA712D4FD for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 29 Apr 2016 11:33:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by welho-filter1.welho.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0A9053C3; Fri, 29 Apr 2016 21:33:35 +0300 (EEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at pp.htv.fi
Received: from welho-smtp1.welho.com ([IPv6:::ffff:83.102.41.84]) by localhost (welho-filter1.welho.com [::ffff:83.102.41.23]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2kPw_WylR4mm; Fri, 29 Apr 2016 21:33:35 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from LK-Perkele-V2 (87-100-143-35.bb.dnainternet.fi [87.100.143.35]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by welho-smtp1.welho.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 72CEA286; Fri, 29 Apr 2016 21:33:35 +0300 (EEST)
Date: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 21:33:32 +0300
From: Ilari Liusvaara <ilariliusvaara@welho.com>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Message-ID: <20160429183332.GB17765@LK-Perkele-V2.elisa-laajakaista.fi>
References: <20160428193252.GA16096@LK-Perkele-V2.elisa-laajakaista.fi> <CABcZeBO2aFuq7PbxLimUoez66u0MkE3_qQi9fdfMS33dFVh_+Q@mail.gmail.com> <20160428214046.GB16096@LK-Perkele-V2.elisa-laajakaista.fi> <CABcZeBMFg4iC-EN9DocqTpmjp46EYrTBdfi-G5nNMKN_xiHxVA@mail.gmail.com> <20160429055831.GA16405@LK-Perkele-V2.elisa-laajakaista.fi> <CABkgnnUFn_UrUFro-yLmn9wf7YkTpRf8anm7LK-bKgYBBkUVNg@mail.gmail.com> <20160429153831.GA16797@LK-Perkele-V2.elisa-laajakaista.fi> <CABcZeBO-C5+93b5qax0wCaUhrKgjVeziphHbQse7NuBCwhdSgA@mail.gmail.com> <20160429174643.GA17765@LK-Perkele-V2.elisa-laajakaista.fi> <CABcZeBNUa-Ac8TvT=KbqiGtTnCYhtsxHhvmqXZuFYo4yz1c8Ew@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBNUa-Ac8TvT=KbqiGtTnCYhtsxHhvmqXZuFYo4yz1c8Ew@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.6.0 (2016-04-01)
Sender: ilariliusvaara@welho.com
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/8rPMNZRyaF6u5oy3unn3KqxM7Rw>
Cc: "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [TLS] #445: Enhanced New Session Ticket
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Fri, 29 Apr 2016 18:33:44 -0000

On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 11:30:02AM -0700, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 10:46 AM, Ilari Liusvaara <ilariliusvaara@welho.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > This doesn't seem awesome from the client's perspective. I'm trying to
> > make
> > > the ordinary PSK-resumption design less of a special case.
> >
> > Well, the client needs to keep track of the ALP anyway. If for nothing
> > else, to check that the server isn't trying to do anything crazy.
> >
> 
> I don't see why that's true in the absence of 0-RTt. There's no reason why
> the
> server shouldn't be able to select any ALPN offers the client provides
> regardless
> of the original offer..

I mean in case where 0-RTT was accepted. Otherwise normal ALPN
negotiation can take place (and by existing definition of ALPN, has to).


-Ilari

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email