Re: [TLS] WGLC for draft-ietf-tls-ticketrequests

Hubert Kario <hkario@redhat.com> Mon, 25 November 2019 13:45 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 D72F712095D for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 05:45:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.301
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.301 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.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 ADSD38bcKqFv for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 05:45:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-1.mimecast.com [205.139.110.61]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4341412095B for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 05:45:58 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1574689557; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=OcmPPahEAqOpghDRQiXFj0O7A8oSyV/EfseXW9+qRoo=; b=WeZq3iSzdgETrJMsr9O6fGLrBcRfjqMdAUSX78DRbiXnCou2+ynDFqqRv3kL1WRb6pIzb8 mJWXT4cPRanKsciGIPIy0T0Do0YyxijOj2bRrHM08EI25cWex83t6EEbW9Lv3HnwcmFG2Z PKrPzYXchunF9Om1TjgsjA409oBlBoY=
Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-272-Ya6hncAaObWlnhZRA3Q26g-1; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 08:45:55 -0500
Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx07.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9E3818A6FF9 for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 13:45:54 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (ovpn-200-53.brq.redhat.com [10.40.200.53]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3639410016DA for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 25 Nov 2019 13:45:53 +0000 (UTC)
From: Hubert Kario <hkario@redhat.com>
To: <tls@ietf.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2019 14:45:51 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <7c40cea2-c466-4511-9394-116e65100e1f@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAChr6Sx=y24kBcWCNVhPvhpEbLNtwTL0T4S-cBpY=MGL1SCYfg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20191116103855.GQ20609@akamai.com> <20191116110425.GR34850@straasha.imrryr.org> <556d2210-4af7-b398-fbd7-eab2685d7c62@wizmail.org> <20191116210617.GS34850@straasha.imrryr.org> <20191116235952.GR20609@akamai.com> <20191117002249.GV34850@straasha.imrryr.org> <CADZyTkmaUVj=sFdgg93MuM2au0B=1M1k3yCA1XDoaAneVDmnNw@mail.gmail.com> <14690874-E301-4BC0-B385-00DEBCBA94C2@apple.com> <20191120034812.GQ34850@straasha.imrryr.org> <5FBFE820-8C53-4B32-9520-343279C1A6CC@apple.com> <20191120064819.GR34850@straasha.imrryr.org> <CAPDSy+6DFJ+OYRtYK6eEiUt1noiik4KxqrGFx0ro_RL2Mft_VA@mail.gmail.com> <67c2ed4f-ce87-4d63-87bf-c38a36c8fb70@www.fastmail.com> <CAPDSy+4NQeVpmawRAOnC=whQ6S25Lc7GZMT2syTStqEt8a7XRQ@mail.gmail.com> <CAChr6SxooRW-8hdp-JtjLVNy1jq3SDK+PK0Y=4qYyVVa_nOOTw@mail.gmail.com> <CAPDSy+5Bes=kCi7WjbETJgBVu_TpM0n==9J7TVg0ha_4udhVvw@mail.gmail.com> <CAChr6Sx=y24kBcWCNVhPvhpEbLNtwTL0T4S-cBpY=MGL1SCYfg@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: Red Hat
User-Agent: Trojita/0.7; Qt/5.12.5; xcb; Linux; Fedora release 30 (Thirty)
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.84 on 10.5.11.22
X-MC-Unique: Ya6hncAaObWlnhZRA3Q26g-1
X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/9lTpzbxKvVWJiq3R7Auq51JNTzU>
Subject: Re: [TLS] WGLC for draft-ietf-tls-ticketrequests
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: Mon, 25 Nov 2019 13:46:00 -0000

On Thursday, 21 November 2019 07:35:09 CET, Rob Sayre wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 20, 2019 at 10:25 PM David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com>;
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Rob,
>> 
>> The SHOULD from your point (1) is there to address Daniel's concern about
>> IoT.
>> 
>
> Is the idea that excess tickets would be wasteful? I think that's true, but
> I would also not want an IoT device that crashed or performed
> unnecessarily-poorly while processing excess tickets.

an IoT device that can be crashed by server just sending valid and expected
messages is horribly broken

if it can't handle such messages, I seriously doubt it would handle 
messages
from an actual attacker (which, need I remind, MUST be handled correctly 
and
result in orderly connection shutdown, one that hopefully includes Alert
messages)

-- 
Regards,
Hubert Kario
Senior Quality Engineer, QE BaseOS Security team
Web: www.cz.redhat.com
Red Hat Czech s.r.o., Purky┼łova 115, 612 00  Brno, Czech Republic