Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-ticketrequests-02.txt

Viktor Dukhovni <> Thu, 03 October 2019 03:44 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3B9631200C1 for <>; Wed, 2 Oct 2019 20:44:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UUrPi3HoNKSD for <>; Wed, 2 Oct 2019 20:44:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 89BF212006F for <>; Wed, 2 Oct 2019 20:44:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] (unknown []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A9DBD2A73D1 for <>; Wed, 2 Oct 2019 23:44:28 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.11\))
From: Viktor Dukhovni <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 2 Oct 2019 23:44:27 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Reply-To: IETF TLS WG <>
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <20191002230402.GF5002@localhost> <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.11)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-ticketrequests-02.txt
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." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 03 Oct 2019 03:44:32 -0000

> On Oct 2, 2019, at 11:20 PM, Christopher Wood <> wrote:
> Asking for one upon resumption seems reasonable to me. Thanks to you and Viktor for bringing up this case!

Thanks!  Much appreciated.

My other point, which I probably obscured in too many words, is
that a client that prefers to re-use existing tickets, would
normally want to ask for 0 new tickets, but this should not
necessarily preclude the server from issuing one *as needed*
(STEK rollover, ...).

So there is a difference between a signal that tickets
are simply not wanted, vs. wanted only *as needed*.

Do you have any thoughts on how a client might signal this?

The use-case is clients and servers that don't make use of
early-data, and don't need to avoid traffic analysis.  For
example, MTA-to-MTA traffic, where the client even identifies
in clear text with "EHLO".  Here ticket reuse is the norm,
and renewal is only needed as tickets age.

[ I hope I managed an suitably concise description this time... ]