IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] consensus call: draft-ietf-tls-ticketrequests

Carrick Bartle <cbartle891@icloud.com> Wed, 04 March 2020 19:18 UTC

Return-Path: <cbartle891@icloud.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 AD3313A154C for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 11:18:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.848
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.848 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-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=icloud.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 9CAIyLMApiGh for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 11:18:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mr85p00im-hyfv06021401.me.com (mr85p00im-hyfv06021401.me.com [17.58.23.190]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A2773A153C for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 11:18:03 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=icloud.com; s=1a1hai; t=1583349482; bh=SVtOMJTye+wK+b9cR5tCt1BTi3VKBIBYjl//CR98jvs=; h=Content-Type:Subject:From:Date:Message-Id:To; b=zCqt/Oi7j5s503eAfpCnRMC2w0e4PNuczyTvYHoXqQWmm8mLFx9nWvm7dClEGjR70 0NO1hKKL3B5GgFs6WhS+oByt8Fr2bNLLR5gLZ9h36xRBny/4GO9MxQBVJm0a8EhM4Q HL9GGJEz56NEQMyGCz5grW02KcVmsRNMrkQjmsbFqhta99PpzlnZxW5yVFbGamX6uC /MpZB2zMCzo2jV8qpzBnKc4dlOR3D5vFFH2WJCKDKFNJ4VlYyjz43P86D98p9yuUWn oz8CYUuuvZCv99VPSGEC/l0MpiA2Dav+xZ9mWq+kC4XzEvfCsQk2l6Mu7K2nXQUwXc xPFuDHnZy19bg==
Received: from [17.230.162.4] (unknown [17.230.162.4]) by mr85p00im-hyfv06021401.me.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B1FEF9C0203; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 19:18:02 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.80.23.2.1\))
From: Carrick Bartle <cbartle891@icloud.com>
In-Reply-To: <0E7E2E43-CC46-488E-981E-BF8417821D85@sn3rd.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2020 11:18:02 -0800
Cc: TLS List <tls@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <87AB213D-3287-406C-88DB-FC479A9D985D@icloud.com>
References: <4E07012F-AB53-4727-A309-D8A15222A433@sn3rd.com> <0E7E2E43-CC46-488E-981E-BF8417821D85@sn3rd.com>
To: Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.80.23.2.1)
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10434:, , definitions=2020-03-04_08:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 mlxscore=0 mlxlogscore=999 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1908290000 definitions=main-2003040127
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/BlI5e_NznjAn1bbnVAf7VPPUCjI>
Subject: Re: [TLS] consensus call: 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: Wed, 04 Mar 2020 19:18:11 -0000

No.

> On Mar 4, 2020, at 8:06 AM, Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com> wrote:
> 
> one more time ...
> 
> All,
> 
> The purpose of this message is to help the chairs judge consensus on the way forward for draft-ietf-tls-ticketrequests. The issue at hand is whether the client-initiated ticket request mechanism [0] should be modified to add support for ticket reuse, see [1] lines 160-214. As we see it, the way forward involves either one draft or two. To that end, we would like your input (YES or NO) on the following question by 2359 UTC 18 March 2020:
> 
> Must the ticket reuse use case be addresses
> in draft-ietf-tls-ticketrequests?
> 
> Full disclosure: RFC 8446 recommends against ticket reuse to help protect clients from passive observers correlating connections [2]. The PR supports ticket reuse for use cases for a server-to-server connection that has fixed source addresses and no connection racing; if adopted the WG will need to ensure that the security considerations are properly documented.
> 
> Note: There have been at least three threads on this draft [3][4][5]. Please, let’s try to avoid re-litigating the points made therein.
> 
> Joe & Sean
> 
> [0] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-ticketrequests/
> [1] https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-ticketrequest/pull/18
> [2] https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8446#appendix-C.4
> [3] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/2cpoaJRushs09EFeTjPr-Ka3FeI/
> [4] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/-7J3gMmpHNw9t3URzxvM-3OaTR8/
> [5] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/FjhqbYYTwzgiV9weeCuxn0tHxPs/
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> TLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email