Re: [TLS] invariant or not: one TLS connection per TCP connection?
Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net> Wed, 15 July 2020 06:42 UTC
Return-Path: <mt@lowentropy.net>
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 6C7923A0B12 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 23:42:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.12
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.12 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, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, 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=lowentropy.net header.b=DcUilCji; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=nbirXyjI
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 saAadTOC0_dk for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 23:42:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from out4-smtp.messagingengine.com (out4-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0AD1F3A0B0E for <tls@ietf.org>; Tue, 14 Jul 2020 23:42:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute2.internal (compute2.nyi.internal [10.202.2.42]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 53DCD5C00E9 for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jul 2020 02:42:31 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from imap2 ([10.202.2.52]) by compute2.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 15 Jul 2020 02:42:31 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=lowentropy.net; h=mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:from:to :subject:content-type; s=fm2; bh=qT1wQ1EMYbX3dHQo9sjks44b4WmiDtv U2pqJK9lSGnU=; b=DcUilCjiTbBtbeNCm8yoRzSVY/JHUjCzqw0omcNI0ItzsIv xIrwpMnwA5xpAL9aVE20RxhrrhLqwegwo32r5JRidSDWQAE4AKHWNgBmDlYJDYx3 RZi5XBY/OtwLmwxiJMMKg+RzuReuU5twflfErY5YyngA7+I6sFi7KL8m6/myYn6w uW/aQatpJz+OAFcT9wEI39NSydxt7a+D3cKIpUA/0PwTTiU9ZoXOiM1hZK/Ycehf xhrhGf7w7cBUhj8xUYsaNTDxPr0EErYuB43G0SfF8hBjasSHP7leUEWYPKeGwVzy y1aCFktP0jLkUo79hhvGus6O6rq6A7Hp1bUJqaw==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm3; bh=qT1wQ1 EMYbX3dHQo9sjks44b4WmiDtvU2pqJK9lSGnU=; b=nbirXyjI/XPsNQiJ7idEA+ EgoP1aEW9L0rtYBcBQ4tOhhhcFdHw/8SXhn5dfMXvSK5tAAo6t/SPNhZzMTTxKYS 6nhtWU+/hHLSWE2g4O/VZhf4rL/yTv5BhRjHlCVO11dzzQhcZNmp9UDlw1NFc6Lx wOEjx9BL4B/cv13kItii95C8f/Z75CHtjDc/8F61LmMUQYG+B2oSy51bpGvFXkLS AeYsnOGt4OLlJUqE66IeBaRHRVB8N308iBJJst7Kuad4K6Ekykf4I8w7KCJA9c3J 64K2AtJijsK5++rkqWhATWOetg1rLiuFHWg6AjBlJexbxb9SJR7DQNFuGX3bn9IQ ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:V6UOX55JJyaYvocg4tklKrEItl2KpoZO09F1mugx-wiRf8teKdqSJQ>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeduiedrfedugdduuddtucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdfqfgfvpdfurfetoffkrfgpnffqhgen uceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucenucfjughrpefofgggkfgjfhffhffvufgtsehttd ertderredtnecuhfhrohhmpedfofgrrhhtihhnucfvhhhomhhsohhnfdcuoehmtheslhho figvnhhtrhhophihrdhnvghtqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeekteeuieektdekleefke evhfekffevvdevgfekgfeluefgvdejjeegffeigedtjeenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigv pedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehmtheslhhofigvnhhtrhhophihrdhnvg ht
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:V6UOX25ofLQnH6EjQ6I8quI9RSE_xmyppvGNdIJiB59qHfsiT0NTvg> <xmx:V6UOXwejkz_mOVWBrQltWcKAJnklqlCPy6gqALl4G0b3QDxdSdYtwQ> <xmx:V6UOXyIgrFdFd7leyHbrbqajGUfZBS5K19H5itALG5IcnqJHxIEMbA> <xmx:V6UOXwZrXxFniRmCUOUjmUBayE6Ptd59JNmWql63dn4aCkohwroxuA>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 187DEE00C8; Wed, 15 Jul 2020 02:42:31 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.3.0-dev0-613-g8a73ad6-fm-20200709.001-g8a73ad6e
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <ce843b23-ebda-41fd-90d3-b1f7be1fb799@www.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20200708042223.GB20623@akamai.com>
References: <20200708042223.GB20623@akamai.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2020 16:42:10 +1000
From: Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>
To: tls@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/CUxdmoKIn-Yc4krKyKssvt6AVeE>
Subject: Re: [TLS] invariant or not: one TLS connection per TCP connection?
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, 15 Jul 2020 06:42:33 -0000
On Wed, Jul 8, 2020, at 14:22, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > Hi all, > > There's an interesting note in draft-ietf-nfsv4-rpc-tls-08 (currently > in IESG Evaluation): > > The protocol convention specified in the current document assumes > there can be no more than one concurrent TLS session per TCP > connection. This is true of current generations of TLS, but might be > different in a future version of TLS. > > Can we envision wanting to do such a thing (e.g., with connection IDs for > non-D TLS)? If not, I can give them guidance that this type of statement > is not needed. Are we forgetting HTTP CONNECT in HTTP/2?
- Re: [TLS] invariant or not: one TLS connection pe… Eric Rescorla
- [TLS] invariant or not: one TLS connection per TC… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [TLS] invariant or not: one TLS connection pe… Nico Williams
- Re: [TLS] invariant or not: one TLS connection pe… Jeremy Harris
- Re: [TLS] invariant or not: one TLS connection pe… Martin Thomson