IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-tls-sslv3-diediedie-00

Bodo Moeller <bmoeller@acm.org> Wed, 04 February 2015 17:03 UTC

Return-Path: <SRS0=eR1q=CW=acm.org=bmoeller@srs.kundenserver.de>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79EE11A1A09 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 09:03:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.938
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.938 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=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 0MYqenxdZDij for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 09:03:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mout.kundenserver.de (mout.kundenserver.de [212.227.126.187]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 96F481A8F49 for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 09:03:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-la0-f44.google.com ([209.85.215.44]) by mrelayeu.kundenserver.de (mreue003) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 0LzFPp-1XX1900Oy9-014WGW for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 04 Feb 2015 18:03:39 +0100
Received: by mail-la0-f44.google.com with SMTP id gf13so2745032lab.3 for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 04 Feb 2015 09:03:38 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.112.144.164 with SMTP id sn4mr26382234lbb.2.1423069418698; Wed, 04 Feb 2015 09:03:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.25.25.194 with HTTP; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 09:03:38 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAOgPGoD806Mf=wa76ixU15nGDCK91tgG4r3Sb0Us2meX4Rqk5A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOgPGoD806Mf=wa76ixU15nGDCK91tgG4r3Sb0Us2meX4Rqk5A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 18:03:38 +0100
Message-ID: <CADMpkcJsqDds6QSdf+4YdPK9EyyFQ1CeD3DhEjWsTihekTbDtw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Bodo Moeller <bmoeller@acm.org>
To: "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="047d7b3a858831413b050e462b79"
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:D0G/Vcu7jtpP4Ndzszl6Tk12q0rCIilmCSQ5YtpofdHJuC89qXL MjLUGtmfTd0leiPZUau5S0gwO6+YL13gzwBKpDiq5uAXDv5u1XLB/wxiIUwWLOO+kzzKSlo HGjT3sizMnPcdLt+0alsopYZImU7pDH2pTYOkpHAvPf6C7QuZHqgBce0wG/y9+VM2ttXz5f 1WvUH0FqlHqfLSOd+FiNg==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/9r28S2ugGlYfGUJawrRHxWlHAcI>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-tls-sslv3-diediedie-00
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <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: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 17:04:48 -0000

Joseph Salowey <joe@salowey.net>:

This is a working group last call for draft-ietf-tls-sslv3-diediedie-00.
> Please reply to the TLS working group list with an indication of whether or
> not the draft is ready for publication and any other comments you may
> have.  Please respond by February 16, 2015.
>

I think that the I-D is essentially ready for publication, and support its
publication as a Standards Track RFC.

(There are a few places where the writing could be improved: it seems a bit
odd, for example, that Section 4 refers to DTLS as a "cryptographic
operation" that SSL 3.0 can't benefit from.  I sort of get the idea, but if
you use non-DTLS TLS, you don't use DTLS anyway, so how does it matter for
DTLS whether non-DTLS TLS handshakes can negotiate SSL 3.0?  However, this
is just a detail in the rationale and doesn't affect the normative
interpretation of the document; its overall message is very clear.)

Bodo

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email