Re: [TLS] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8446 (6204)

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Thu, 04 June 2020 16:12 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.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 311A63A099E for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 09:12:09 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.896
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 uZp_Ki4AtcpW for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 09:12:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22b.google.com (mail-lj1-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC6D13A0994 for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 09:12:03 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22b.google.com with SMTP id s1so8043247ljo.0 for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 04 Jun 2020 09:12:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=psNM1/sVEKOOVt1XcwWAxV3MgzDV0tHgWD+EZEXp84w=; b=vZBpJErBGCwLTIeWY3ICNiPlFFwreDks3Chw96AqD93CsydNpgELa8KQF1ZI6nSHyW 7pcB/8yTmFM+d1A8UsqUNU8PFaBMswSbIgrmnl+7CSVBPovOe6KMbBzXrDuher5F5mq6 eJeY0gVyimpIc7n5477cFK6mqCJGegyWoUMdMwufCphmmR0Lb/oQ1BDcHs0Fcn1/LReC z4lXejd0qlL2EO0mICAFoLe82NOC5+5fLE5qtCguKZqhr7oHN2lY8n9rNRNUqxYoeotS rF1M8YgSWGWXgJnLxEdudAZ65suCrVfmu+tQWhAwhMEwsUTeQBulwNWKJqmzx8rPUjpb PYFw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=psNM1/sVEKOOVt1XcwWAxV3MgzDV0tHgWD+EZEXp84w=; b=dAWTmHjg/w48Vi3ujoxnRf9DesGa/t11l/qB7a/lanRp808ckTecqA5wxQ5A5aZlDV sNcMWp7NrRiwdO3LfPcpAF40dnttr1uV7OJK8emdG4+rUMlYORrPXV7neOSSsz7wi2Yw Qr1vBSACeYWne65vga/nXSsmF6AO/9QmpWL6LxST/qQxOEiaDXyzKm0XOHyFVqeIoFoi dKKkahj/xba38xOzhw7o1AV6ywB/SXFdbeR+5q8oeN8WZpvaDkaHcWneS0mx83pKOk6N GOzIVEgdEeLamq4a7CfAFn5RRXy72LNnSeDQXWeAUDT2Sskbxo3mRtKhnpyYceww3y5e 5W+Q==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532K7XR/OHMVPTaKudHgV1FOBZVcX/ynLqx4MEIN2US/i5pI9VoR kpiq/wE8gqhVamCg0nZGG0pWdHEOAOYBgVoi51G/jeNniwg=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy9jOu/BPScNMLlmBE1Z8Isd/CEd05WG2gAq7bVzzDGIAAPxjqTEfucxdWShVdNt/DWwn2KBwAWngOWv03AysM=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:81d4:: with SMTP id s20mr2552412ljg.184.1591287121571; Thu, 04 Jun 2020 09:12:01 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200604000011.387A5F4070F@rfc-editor.org> <73b5d3e2-d2f4-447c-84d6-0ae0a08374a9@www.fastmail.com> <CABcZeBMswqW4rWGmTxwK_zUy0-anRt6PFPo_YK1zNhWQw7wtSg@mail.gmail.com> <F3357894-3045-44A9-B30E-8AD2DEB37DE6@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <F3357894-3045-44A9-B30E-8AD2DEB37DE6@vigilsec.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2020 09:11:25 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBOmRAFV9M1W6bmD8OCFcDpQmC+5M=4reRzMhjnpPHC4dg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Cc: Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>, IETF TLS <tls@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009e035005a74467fe"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/AEBc5OJTA53CE8ZTKdxTwanjgXc>
Subject: Re: [TLS] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8446 (6204)
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: Thu, 04 Jun 2020 16:12:09 -0000

On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 8:46 AM Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:

> Eric:
>
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 6:07 PM Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net> wrote:
>
>> I think that this is a useful erratum and it should be approved/HFDU.
>> The extension to which this text alludes is RFC 8773, not
>> post_handshake_auth.
>>
>
> Yes, although 8773 actually is not super-clear about post-handshake, so
> that's actually something we should clarify there.
>
>
> RFC 8773 is not intended for post handshake.  So, I never thought about
> that.  What is the use case you are considering?
>

I don't have one. I'm just trying to make sure things are clear. perhaps an
erratum on 8773 to make ultra clear?

-Ekr


> Russ
>
>