Re: [TLS] [POSSIBLE SPAM] Re: draft-ietf-tls-renegotation: next
Martin Rex <mrex@sap.com> Wed, 16 December 2009 20:59 UTC
Return-Path: <mrex@sap.com>
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 457CE3A6A03 for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 12:59:24 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.194
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.194 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.055, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 yB9fHO3VG5zr for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 12:59:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpde01.sap-ag.de (smtpde01.sap-ag.de [155.56.68.171]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45E833A67EC for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Dec 2009 12:59:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.sap.corp by smtpde01.sap-ag.de (26) with ESMTP id nBGKx7Vj007080 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 16 Dec 2009 21:59:07 +0100 (MET)
From: Martin Rex <mrex@sap.com>
Message-Id: <200912162059.nBGKx7Sv017923@fs4113.wdf.sap.corp>
To: DPKemp@missi.ncsc.mil
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 21:59:07 +0100
In-Reply-To: <200912162001.nBGK1K4I028293@stingray.missi.ncsc.mil> from "Kemp, David P." at Dec 16, 9 03:00:39 pm
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Scanner: Virus Scanner virwal05
X-SAP: out
Cc: tls@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [TLS] [POSSIBLE SPAM] Re: draft-ietf-tls-renegotation: next
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: mrex@sap.com
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: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 20:59:24 -0000
Kemp, David P. wrote: > > Martin's text contradicts the AD's decision ... I do not fully agree with the AD's determination of rough consensus. For the MCSV signaling, the real rough consensus is different from what Pasi wrote: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg05306.html A mandatory Client->Server signaling through cipher suite may have less fanatic followers by the count of numbers, but technical advantages and _no_ technical objections have been raised against it. The current either cipher suite or empty TLS extension RI signaling may have more "pro", but has significant objections against it because of the ambiguity, increased complexity, a 4x code size burden for old non-rengotiating servers and additional testing complexity. So as far as rough consensus is concerned, it is definitely with the approach I described. This is what the IETF procedures are about. Otherwise we could just go back to counting votes. -Martin
- [TLS] draft-ietf-tls-renegotation: next steps Pasi.Eronen
- Re: [TLS] draft-ietf-tls-renegotation: next steps Martin Rex
- Re: [TLS] draft-ietf-tls-renegotation: next steps Paul Hoffman
- Re: [TLS] draft-ietf-tls-renegotation: next steps Michael D'Errico
- Re: [TLS] draft-ietf-tls-renegotation: next steps Martin Rex
- Re: [TLS] draft-ietf-tls-renegotation: next steps Marsh Ray
- Re: [TLS] draft-ietf-tls-renegotation: next steps Eric Rescorla
- Re: [TLS] [POSSIBLE SPAM] Re: draft-ietf-tls-rene… Kemp, David P.
- Re: [TLS] draft-ietf-tls-renegotation: next steps Marsh Ray
- Re: [TLS] draft-ietf-tls-renegotation: next steps Martin Rex
- Re: [TLS] [POSSIBLE SPAM] Re: draft-ietf-tls-rene… Martin Rex
- Re: [TLS] [POSSIBLE SPAM] Re: draft-ietf-tls-rene… Marsh Ray
- [TLS] Generic process issues (Re: Re: draft-ietf-… Nicolas Williams
- Re: [TLS] [POSSIBLE SPAM] Re: draft-ietf-tls-rene… Martin Rex
- Re: [TLS] [POSSIBLE SPAM] Re: draft-ietf-tls-rene… Martin Rex
- Re: [TLS] [POSSIBLE SPAM] Re: draft-ietf-tls-rene… Marsh Ray
- Re: [TLS] [POSSIBLE SPAM] Re: draft-ietf-tls-rene… Martin Rex
- Re: [TLS] draft-ietf-tls-renegotation: next steps David-Sarah Hopwood
- Re: [TLS] draft-ietf-tls-renegotation: next steps David-Sarah Hopwood
- Re: [TLS] draft-ietf-tls-renegotation: next steps Martin Rex
- Re: [TLS] [POSSIBLE SPAM] Re: draft-ietf-tls-rene… Marsh Ray
- Re: [TLS] draft-ietf-tls-renegotation: next Pasi.Eronen
- Re: [TLS] [POSSIBLE SPAM] Re: draft-ietf-tls-rene… Martin Rex
- Re: [TLS] [POSSIBLE SPAM] Re: draft-ietf-tls-rene… Martin Rex
- Re: [TLS] draft-ietf-tls-renegotation: next Martin Rex
- Re: [TLS] draft-ietf-tls-renegotation: next Martin Rex
- Re: [TLS] draft-ietf-tls-renegotation: next Marsh Ray
- Re: [TLS] draft-ietf-tls-renegotation: next Kyle Hamilton
- Re: [TLS] draft-ietf-tls-renegotation: next Martin Rex
- Re: [TLS] draft-ietf-tls-renegotation: next Michael D'Errico
- Re: [TLS] draft-ietf-tls-renegotation: next David-Sarah Hopwood