Re: [TLS] SCSV vs RI when both specified. Was: Updated draft

Michael D'Errico <> Fri, 18 December 2009 21:01 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2A413A6AC3 for <>; Fri, 18 Dec 2009 13:01:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.546
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.546 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.053, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id HVcOWYkved9D for <>; Fri, 18 Dec 2009 13:01:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1A67A3A6AC2 for <>; Fri, 18 Dec 2009 13:01:27 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A614E89938 for <>; Fri, 18 Dec 2009 16:01:08 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed;; h=message-id :date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=A5Q+N88DpkD8 D5RaOGfUfnvasck=; b=c0ff00KLHd/n14H1TtvJCRZz0DhSMpj257+k/+Q05iOq M+aE1RxbDtTLQif2Ls9QaI8HEEnzZXtZfyCUU/I3pzT7BGEghBFBFVR4ENFS1KPl QmUfNCmnaMk4Iaam/Gq9asr/SkJ9V31L4GBKUDhRCl9IODpEtljygQQt3llJfOA=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; h=message-id:date :from:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sasl; b=QFNttK G2qUklIvg1wPAV5DRcmZOAqtUr0das02dC60W4Xw88oibkMJVYQ/tf8XFuZQWHgy J/23wofAiJkpOajxildmy5UOjMnYdhvMVoqFydDUxW3LqGwywVD8prEBODdOrLV6 Tu2mgRASgdI0EWFmb0PESdEV8XLKTDD/sklBw=
Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix. (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A308489937 for <>; Fri, 18 Dec 2009 16:01:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: from administrators-macbook-pro.local (unknown []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 40A1189936 for <>; Fri, 18 Dec 2009 16:01:08 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 13:02:57 -0800
From: Michael D'Errico <>
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Macintosh/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: TLS Mailing List <>
References: <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 76ECCD58-EC18-11DE-97B1-DC0DEE7EF46B-38729857!
Subject: Re: [TLS] SCSV vs RI when both specified. Was: Updated draft
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." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 21:01:28 -0000

Marsh Ray wrote:
> Michael D'Errico wrote:
>> Marsh Ray wrote:
>>> Come up with a way to complete a sentence that begins with
>>> "TLS_RENEGO_PROTECTION_REQUEST is" or "SCSV means" such that it
>>> describes the three cases for it in a reasonably consistent way.
>> "In the absence of an RI extension, SCSV conveys the same meaning
>> as an empty RI.  When RI is present, SCSV is ignored."
> Hmmm...doesn't quite meet the stated requirements.

Because I used two sentences?  Because I didn't start my sentence
with "SCSV means"?

My two sentences describe everything you need to know:

    SCSV absent,  RI absent:   hide the kids
    SCSV absent,  RI present:  same as RI
    SCSV present, RI absent:   same as empty RI
    SCSV present, RI present:  same as RI (SCSV ignored)

Why do you want the last one to be "ABORT!!"?