IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Blumenthal, Uri - 0662 - MITLL" <uri@ll.mit.edu> Mon, 28 December 2009 02:32 UTC

Return-Path: <uri@ll.mit.edu>
X-Original-To: tls@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF4F53A677D for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Dec 2009 18:32:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.298
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.298 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.300, BAYES_50=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nzmusfVhSp5f for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 27 Dec 2009 18:32:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ll.mit.edu (LLMAIL1.LL.MIT.EDU [129.55.12.41]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1424A3A6893 for <tls@ietf.org>; Sun, 27 Dec 2009 18:32:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from smtp@localhost) by ll.mit.edu (8.12.10/8.8.8) id nBS2W4Kl025274 for <tls@ietf.org>; Sun, 27 Dec 2009 21:32:04 -0500 (EST)
Received: from lle2k7-hub02.llan.ll.mit.edu( ), claiming to be "LLE2K7-HUB02.mitll.ad.local" via SMTP by llpost, id smtpdAAAnkaatW; Sun Dec 27 21:30:30 2009
Received: from LLE2K7-BE01.mitll.ad.local ([ ]) by LLE2K7-HUB02.mitll.ad.local ([ ]) with mapi; Sun, 27 Dec 2009 21:30:30 -0500
From: "Blumenthal, Uri - 0662 - MITLL" <uri@ll.mit.edu>
To: "'tls@ietf.org'" <tls@ietf.org>
Date: Sun, 27 Dec 2009 21:30:28 -0500
Thread-Topic: [TLS] SCSV vs RI when both specified. Was: Updated draft
Thread-Index: AcqDJZdeiU8ZVmyRRBi4ifP4eX/QZgEQCCHq
Message-ID: <C75D8274.75D5%uri@ll.mit.edu>
In-Reply-To: <4B30F67D.1030807@extendedsubset.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/13.3.0.091002
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [TLS] SCSV vs RI when both specified. Was: Updated draft
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
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." <tls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Mon, 28 Dec 2009 02:32:25 -0000

On 12/22/09  11:40 , "Marsh Ray" <marsh@extendedsubset.com> wrote:
> Blumenthal, Uri - 0662 - MITLL wrote:
>> ................[switch off non-working gear that
>> won't talk when things look the least bit funny]
>> and turn to cell phones? As for them the need to
>> communicate usually does NOT take a back seat.
> 
> Perhaps the priorities of the soldiers in the field are not in perfect
> alignment with those who specified the equipment?

Exactly. You may add "and there's an experience/understanding gap between
those who design systems & write policies vs. those who are supposed to use
them in the field to accomplish something meaningful within the
situation-given time constraints".
-- 
Regards,
Uri
<Disclaimer>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email