Re: [TLS] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-tls-tls13-18 (Martin Rex) Thu, 03 November 2016 18:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 887D8129AEA for <>; Thu, 3 Nov 2016 11:16:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.922
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.922 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id I0YlR_foFAeO for <>; Thu, 3 Nov 2016 11:16:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5C07D129AC2 for <>; Thu, 3 Nov 2016 11:15:50 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3t8tSN2n3Cz25yv; Thu, 3 Nov 2016 19:15:48 +0100 (CET)
X-purgate-ID: 152705::1478196948-0000521C-59E07886/0/0
X-purgate-size: 1365
X-purgate: clean
X-purgate: This mail is considered clean (visit for further information)
X-purgate-Ad: Categorized by eleven eXpurgate (R)
X-purgate-type: clean
X-SAP-SPAM-Status: clean
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3t8tSM5Jvszkyyy; Thu, 3 Nov 2016 19:15:47 +0100 (CET)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 10159) id B06D21A576; Thu, 3 Nov 2016 19:15:47 +0100 (CET)
In-Reply-To: <>
To: "Salz, Rich" <>
Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2016 19:15:47 +0100
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL125 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Message-Id: <>
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-tls-tls13-18
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2016 18:16:20 -0000

Salz, Rich wrote:
>> Since then, I've seen exactly ZERO rationale why the cleartext contenttype,
>> which has existed through SSLv3->TLSv1.2 would be a problem.  
> Because it's kind of implied in the charter, about making as much private as possible.
>> years), because it is actively being used to signal state of the communication
>> channel to the application and to *NOT* break application architecture that
>> relies on (new) application data remaining visible on network sockets as
>> "network readable" events.
> One app's data is another adversary's oracle.
> Or is it that "signals have no morals"?

If you look at TLS records exchanged between two peers,
and in particular if you perform a TLS handshake with same server
yourself and compare, you can easily (heuristically) determine
which TLS records of the original stream are hanshake records,
and which are application data records.

So there is exactly ZERO benefit of concealing the ContentTypes.

But this concealing reliably breaks existing application middleware
at the endpoints, which needs to reliably & quickly tell the difference
between handshake&alert records and application data, so that it can
leave application data records in the network buffer, so that the
socket readable event remains visible for the event-based application