Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 Application Identifier ?

Pascal Urien <pascal.urien@gmail.com> Wed, 16 July 2014 19:21 UTC

Return-Path: <pascal.urien@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9110D1A01EB for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Jul 2014 12:21:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 8390lsKRGGn9 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Jul 2014 12:21:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qc0-x229.google.com (mail-qc0-x229.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::229]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 80CDA1A01E8 for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Jul 2014 12:21:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qc0-f169.google.com with SMTP id m20so1243995qcx.0 for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Jul 2014 12:21:56 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=00KrEZpXDJDtF5b+wVBNqDx82aStchjS+yWMx9w/en8=; b=p3a5Yo1A6oLbhnVzxlHWADM4DdN1Ndaog5XlX31qztQonXYpAyunkBeseduVnqKIVS Az105Sai8wSGG8KVwULo/Jmdn/TrcAKHeFgJLA18uPlY7fGdgemNKRuIQjoSZr8p5QSA 28ngwM4+/WxDZI7IYF6AGmsQ8eSOddT/n4fXSbN7VQzamPlaR5fDddpIsK0vWecYSihQ iFvYh3bhrfko3bMuCX7cizX+7aYy0QrESP2z/5mCzFst9+smd4WKSXdpuuQ8jkAOqmiu MOiHVC8DYtleagv8vHh10Y+v5S4uwg5Zt2I7TDR2Vndbwn1I3OiMICJNlUDBp4K7dgnS 5jqg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.224.115.3 with SMTP id g3mr50098888qaq.9.1405538516758; Wed, 16 Jul 2014 12:21:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.96.194.225 with HTTP; Wed, 16 Jul 2014 12:21:56 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnW2MBpBd5inPTj0V0aH69g7JOGuRtAA9o+-hYniEgYGSA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAEQGKXRhAh2BvwY0xCCf-BN6kh37_athgYQ+Ha7LJE0DYvSCVg@mail.gmail.com> <ce96173c-e886-4c90-a567-8fd445ed7169@email.android.com> <CAEQGKXTby0hwY+Ttxki1CJ7aimkGOgEuxcGcMw2z_HQt3H0-LQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnW2MBpBd5inPTj0V0aH69g7JOGuRtAA9o+-hYniEgYGSA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Jul 2014 21:21:56 +0200
Message-ID: <CAEQGKXQ3bxQKLVLoYxiEkyJ7cG+8RYSyuxHKoNDi=UYkV-rrGA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pascal Urien <pascal.urien@gmail.com>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bdc96b0027c9304fe5470aa
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/DhJCOujgtc19A8CCmLxPXdZ1ByY
Cc: "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 Application Identifier ?
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <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 Jul 2014 19:21:59 -0000

For me TLS is a transport layer

UDP or TCP are transport layers. They identify the transported apps pdu by
a port number

Without a mandatory application identifier the TLS 1.3 will not give by
default any information on the transported application

I believe that a client certificate should be bound to an application.

If no application identifier is available the client could set it to null.

Regards
Pascal


2014-07-16 18:25 GMT+02:00 Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>om>:

> On 16 July 2014 06:32, Pascal Urien <pascal.urien@gmail.com> wrote:
> > But ALPN is an extension from previous versions of TLS, and is not
> mandatory
>
> How is that a problem?  If you need the functionality, then
> implementing ALPN is not especially onerous.  Actually, I can only
> think of negative characteristics of having it be mandatory.
>