IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4492 (4783)

Xiaoyin Liu <xiaoyin.l@outlook.com> Wed, 24 August 2016 17:31 UTC

Return-Path: <xiaoyin.l@outlook.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 9B23912D162 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 10:31:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.018
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.018 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_ENVFROM=0.001, HK_RANDOM_FROM=1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=outlook.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 lNG-zipJiEQH for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 10:31:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from BAY004-OMC3S19.hotmail.com (bay004-omc3s19.hotmail.com [65.54.190.157]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5F89612D5B8 for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 10:31:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from NAM01-SN1-obe.outbound.protection.outlook.com ([65.54.190.187]) by BAY004-OMC3S19.hotmail.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(7.5.7601.23008); Wed, 24 Aug 2016 10:31:14 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=outlook.com; s=selector1; h=From:Date:Subject:Message-ID:Content-Type:MIME-Version; bh=tRefvMlERC5LV4sm4gg5BGR4tLzIgIJEsJiAOFrGd18=; b=CsPYWK1RtnSVWNpkLYt6MISelwIO7xv/RdNv9QRT4QNrmlAhKcdtKMR5/J2GwA6wN05ijEsCytH5AIsI/yZwbfYZ9+qmsipp7nTnG9t3iP+DlCWxXCpesytoo/rgY4AGpEp7N5n7cBCvV9UbqG/aeXkpAkgXvUW6IasOL3pTyeHLNBUSMG5+wiYEgw8aBz705yXAa2Q8K7maV9JbWNJ/yTHlXTklIWA2udQK2ZoaW3vJQiKpFT1jdDq9c+bep0J1FosOHrA2fIz5PxvoDorIulaLtJjDtY9LQC/vb5uhXGkQCALJerGjINP2jNNIsT0VjddZjr4awOxMFr7IZxRn8A==
Received: from SN1NAM01FT006.eop-nam01.prod.protection.outlook.com (10.152.64.57) by SN1NAM01HT142.eop-nam01.prod.protection.outlook.com (10.152.65.4) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA_P384) id 15.1.587.6; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 17:31:13 +0000
Received: from CY1PR15MB0778.namprd15.prod.outlook.com (10.152.64.52) by SN1NAM01FT006.mail.protection.outlook.com (10.152.65.154) with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_0, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA_P384) id 15.1.587.6 via Frontend Transport; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 17:31:12 +0000
Received: from CY1PR15MB0778.namprd15.prod.outlook.com ([10.169.22.10]) by CY1PR15MB0778.namprd15.prod.outlook.com ([10.169.22.10]) with mapi id 15.01.0587.013; Wed, 24 Aug 2016 17:31:10 +0000
From: Xiaoyin Liu <xiaoyin.l@outlook.com>
To: Bodo Moeller <bmoeller@acm.org>, Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [TLS] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4492 (4783)
Thread-Index: AQHR+kcFTuLAAhdbwkCpcQn6uhu3paBXVqcAgAArol6AALNogIAAA7yAgAAPiYCAAAzKAIAAD+YO
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 17:31:10 +0000
Message-ID: <CY1PR15MB077877002193D0D119C002ABFFEA0@CY1PR15MB0778.namprd15.prod.outlook.com>
References: <20160819171346.A5E32B80DC6@rfc-editor.org> <9976B7F9-B1F3-4549-A93B-7B940A61C7F5@sn3rd.com> <CY1PR15MB077818F8C3110170A5EA910EFFEA0@CY1PR15MB0778.namprd15.prod.outlook.com> <57F439CA-1CBA-4F52-863E-E69D3A78704C@sn3rd.com> <CADMpkcLfnHBEhnLoV2mdR---XB7Gt4c7XqHugAgjR6PubCU_DA@mail.gmail.com> <CACsn0c=E8U6MH28t4qvKtFfCGr1Mi59bdFVA5-QjATzGMo8YTg@mail.gmail.com>, <CADMpkcKLwivwEzfJArjEEipYkwUcVc1MYmYrAHLfbpDRxx-GAQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CADMpkcKLwivwEzfJArjEEipYkwUcVc1MYmYrAHLfbpDRxx-GAQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
authentication-results: spf=softfail (sender IP is 10.152.64.52) smtp.mailfrom=outlook.com; acm.org; dkim=none (message not signed) header.d=none;acm.org; dmarc=fail action=none header.from=outlook.com;
received-spf: SoftFail (protection.outlook.com: domain of transitioning outlook.com discourages use of 10.152.64.52 as permitted sender)
x-tmn: [TgPwgt3mK+RG2Vl2zRvfLxec/SICZFQ/]
x-eopattributedmessage: 0
x-forefront-antispam-report: CIP:10.152.64.52; IPV:NLI; CTRY:; EFV:NLI; SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(98900003); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:SN1NAM01HT142; H:CY1PR15MB0778.namprd15.prod.outlook.com; FPR:; SPF:None; LANG:en;
x-microsoft-exchange-diagnostics: 1; SN1NAM01HT142; 6:ubHkmRwV1FMOoivOYOUUMNQnOO4Vq9g3KDu8fA0BpmNA3NxvhmwLyJs5EjK5efFvcxIJbDr97TI+wEDCkR8gpa6KP3Pf0eHcc63rLLjfw89NgumsKuNS7DTX8R63NEWw0xorEVhA2Q3OuCsu0kEDsZRjNyJFXMCjuscR+n72bGijmG9h+DFk65cMlYnEvmn+2G+WigdMFCHbov6R2hGSrdkKPgrzl5Ckdf5UT9Ulyxih9WHdzY/QO166VKbwGSUsjg+sETdi+arr7hMEuLMYdFbR4JB/ko8PwupoNEr29luvvfwpwcGTIlIt3XpLoBc1; 5:rZ+2/3VAL33cqxcsvwlniJ6+qUDfQ/D5cZvOXY9jWhoU9L/uliwmI+KvZswPuhgXW+Cc40K5wFj6FpsPQqfXsNZ/kWm3V6Gqr8WHdtOlD3vD5eD+5qPVhmbHJ7dyiFx83ayleMEdepNYUVd3oGaqGA==; 24:f+XGkBj/plxueFIcS39DFozytqG3HwGBO384OWeArp3EsILyDgcV19vrgy1nfLhSLg0afa2QmgYAjDVJFBpecjz9CJ3FS5gQxRqqtX2J5/Q=; 7:tLQ5axBzHJxtFoTa4eSsa0ZUPrJh2/utkMV2IR8g40tB2CoNndPTeBcnd0cDum4hsqk/txTPXC2mE1yQiD40wCcByjUF7dtBT5VxYONb48g2B1fU2+3o2VoMSxTmriRph1sjtsNtS5ReKY/kTd2SvVqc7dixXoj+9CK3jfzV30JWHaShZ9XhlwmDb4bnP/GWojXF5Lb3P8KFP2/KPJoFpKKpSkOpjSOtpABiXMrxvVVO//QwLlAL8OlNYkSLGjvn
x-ms-office365-filtering-correlation-id: 2c157f2a-5122-4bb5-96cd-08d3cc447098
x-microsoft-antispam: UriScan:; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(1601124038)(1601125047); SRVR:SN1NAM01HT142;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:(432015012)(82015046); SRVR:SN1NAM01HT142; BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:SN1NAM01HT142;
x-forefront-prvs: 0044C17179
spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:99
spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_CY1PR15MB077877002193D0D119C002ABFFEA0CY1PR15MB0778namp_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-OriginatorOrg: outlook.com
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 24 Aug 2016 17:31:10.6891 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Internet
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 84df9e7f-e9f6-40af-b435-aaaaaaaaaaaa
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: SN1NAM01HT142
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Aug 2016 17:31:14.0158 (UTC) FILETIME=[501DF8E0:01D1FE2D]
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/96tfc_dxSUvR_FCorSyf3L5gfQU>
Cc: "hello@florent-tatard.fr" <hello@florent-tatard.fr>, "sean+ietf@sn3rd.com" <sean+ietf@sn3rd.com>, Kathleen Moriarty <Kathleen.Moriarty.ietf@gmail.com>, Chris Hawk <chris@corriente.net>, Nelson B Bolyard <nelson@bolyard.com>, "<tls@ietf.org>" <tls@ietf.org>, "vipul.gupta@sun.com" <vipul.gupta@sun.com>
Subject: Re: [TLS] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4492 (4783)
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: Wed, 24 Aug 2016 17:31:15 -0000

Thank you everyone for your explanation! Now I see why it is editorial.


Xiaoyin

________________________________
From: TLS <tls-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Bodo Moeller <bmoeller@acm.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 12:32:50 PM
To: Watson Ladd
Cc: hello@florent-tatard.fr; sean+ietf@sn3rd.com; Kathleen Moriarty; Chris Hawk; Nelson B Bolyard; <tls@ietf.org>; vipul.gupta@sun.com
Subject: Re: [TLS] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC4492 (4783)


> No, this is wrong. There is a client and there is a server, and
> whatever internal arrangements are made are epiphenominal from the
> perspective of this standard.

They certainly are, but that just means that, in that (unintended) reading of the spec, it's using very contrived language to discuss something that's not subject to being specified here per se (where more commonly you'd find informal language describing the "inner thoughts" of the implantation).

> I doubt anyone was confused by what it
> said, but either way it needs to get fixed,

Exactly. My point is just that, either way, it can be seen as an editorial error rather than a technical one, so there's no need to block the erratum on that decision

Bodo

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email