IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] TLS renegotiation issue

Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams@sun.com> Thu, 05 November 2009 18:40 UTC

Return-Path: <Nicolas.Williams@sun.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 AD7933A6B40 for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Nov 2009 10:40:01 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.014
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.014 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.032, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, 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 7Zt9zd9dqYiY for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Nov 2009 10:40:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from brmea-mail-2.sun.com (brmea-mail-2.Sun.COM [192.18.98.43]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EACF73A680B for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Nov 2009 10:40:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dm-central-02.central.sun.com ([129.147.62.5]) by brmea-mail-2.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id nA5IeNhg028828 for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Nov 2009 18:40:23 GMT
Received: from binky.Central.Sun.COM (binky.Central.Sun.COM [129.153.128.104]) by dm-central-02.central.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL, v2.2) with ESMTP id nA5IeNXg001764 for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Nov 2009 11:40:23 -0700 (MST)
Received: from binky.Central.Sun.COM (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by binky.Central.Sun.COM (8.14.3+Sun/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nA5ISrZa009299; Thu, 5 Nov 2009 12:28:53 -0600 (CST)
Received: (from nw141292@localhost) by binky.Central.Sun.COM (8.14.3+Sun/8.14.3/Submit) id nA5ISrvC009298; Thu, 5 Nov 2009 12:28:53 -0600 (CST)
X-Authentication-Warning: binky.Central.Sun.COM: nw141292 set sender to Nicolas.Williams@sun.com using -f
Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 12:28:53 -0600
From: Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams@sun.com>
To: Martin Rex <mrex@sap.com>
Message-ID: <20091105182853.GF1105@Sun.COM>
References: <20091105175044.GG5124@Sun.COM> <200911051816.nA5IG292002997@fs4113.wdf.sap.corp>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200911051816.nA5IG292002997@fs4113.wdf.sap.corp>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.7i
Cc: ekr@rtfm.com, tls@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [TLS] TLS renegotiation issue
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, 05 Nov 2009 18:40:01 -0000

On Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 07:16:02PM +0100, Martin Rex wrote:
> I'm trying to use terminology that is already in the TLS specs.
> The generic term "channel bindings" is a little bit to fuzzy for
> my taste, and the original use of channel bindings in GSS-API
> is not cryptographically secure.

Also, the term "channel bindings" is only fuzzy as used in RFCs
2743/2744.  But RFC5056 put an end to that.

If you believe that RFC5056 leaves the term too fuzzy still, then please
explain how, and then we can look at updating RFC5056 if need be.

Nico
--

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email