Re: [TLS] Text for draft-ietf-tls-rfc4366-bis

Michael D'Errico <mike-list@pobox.com> Thu, 27 May 2010 20:45 UTC

Return-Path: <mike-list@pobox.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 71D0A3A6866 for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 May 2010 13:45:42 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=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 7N2HuYaL5jTb for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 May 2010 13:45:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com [208.72.237.25]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 572643A67A6 for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 May 2010 13:45:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DE88B629C; Thu, 27 May 2010 16:45:31 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=message-id :date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=+3eKYwwhbp0Q tlTxve8ynzOf750=; b=VHLP8IbOo2E+RPx+D7PylF5pbT61XpTPcx4nDFIKGo2a O4OlhKRMAnb09ljhD3Ta2ws9zDH3Rd8Thi9dKSHdVS/m3V8y1CaczEtBzCvtAtBa j9z8y6SD8gXzJF74H1HohBgKc8RHNPK5etk38XdVT2FYFZJVdpVo56pp10MtHwQ=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=message-id:date :from:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sasl; b=xBYv3Q gVJGy+VDn99Vm13tcAQDBofFcef6O8SynaAsX+NPlV2iKKA840+5kwmkQl+IkNLN CY33ebmT7ugnpckxMdyAZSuZKHDSExqhlq5/IHdcRxL28Adsr6apdHGaz7atTXIm zs2vXthyqmq43e2cmvsmZs+dcBs9B+TVGYl8k=
Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix. (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13BF7B6299; Thu, 27 May 2010 16:45:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from administrators-macbook-pro.local (unknown [24.234.114.35]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 5D0EEB6292; Thu, 27 May 2010 16:45:25 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <4BFED9E4.20004@pobox.com>
Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 13:45:24 -0700
From: Michael D'Errico <mike-list@pobox.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Macintosh/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: mrex@sap.com
References: <201005271813.o4RIDACs029100@fs4113.wdf.sap.corp>
In-Reply-To: <201005271813.o4RIDACs029100@fs4113.wdf.sap.corp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Pobox-Relay-ID: C8FBB678-69D0-11DF-AC10-6730EE7EF46B-38729857!a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com
Cc: tls@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [TLS] Text for draft-ietf-tls-rfc4366-bis
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: Thu, 27 May 2010 20:45:42 -0000

I advocated this from the beginning, but others thought that it
wouldn't be backward-compatible.  I was willing to accept the
"MAY omit" as a compromise, but if we want to do it right, the
client really does need to send the same SNI when attempting to
resume a previous session.

I think we should still keep the text that explains what a server
should do IF the client omits the SNI when trying to resume a past
session (use the same name that was sent in the original handshake).

Mike



Martin Rex wrote:
> Joseph Salowey wrote:
>> After an offline discussion with Martin I think we really should remove
>> the sentence " The client MAY omit the extension..." Omitting the
>> extension seems like a really bad idea, because if the session is not
>> resumed the client may establish a session with different
>> characteristics than what was intended. So now we have:
> 
> Thank you for you efforts.
> 
> I'm fine with this clarification.
> 
> 
> -Martin
> 
> PS: maybe some others (in particular who discussed this particular
>     topic) could provide their feedback so that Joe gets somewhat more
>     than deafening silence to determine whether there is consensus.  ;-)