IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] Should we require implementations to send alerts?

"Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com> Wed, 16 September 2015 14:24 UTC

Return-Path: <rsalz@akamai.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 3F0901B3E27 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 07:24:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.411
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.411 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 1Q2L2JFcv_F2 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 07:23:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from prod-mail-xrelay06.akamai.com (prod-mail-xrelay06.akamai.com [96.6.114.98]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E3241B3E39 for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 07:23:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from prod-mail-xrelay06.akamai.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by postfix.imss70 (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFD7C496C0D; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 14:23:51 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from prod-mail-relay09.akamai.com (prod-mail-relay09.akamai.com [172.27.22.68]) by prod-mail-xrelay06.akamai.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D97B2496C1D; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 14:23:51 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; s=a1; t=1442413431; bh=bLrBhsOpgG3lYeR7TC42dkD5wo8U8IkAVFGNSY1sHH4=; l=378; h=From:To:CC:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=zfLHDv4EBIihF1sl1UOatDVGK1Sr+TOP0lT+tmMHojdNq1vDXVoMf3eQVaBZniiP+ ZY9X4tOuns+PzhWncAvdJycEu/vIWYMYfHQvxUFFypXuUqXVFLLkLHIdTzvDgS3ZTo 47UVX7Cb7YrfdjCARxzvI5stFO/sqhyowmppXUxI=
Received: from email.msg.corp.akamai.com (ustx2ex-cas3.msg.corp.akamai.com [172.27.25.32]) by prod-mail-relay09.akamai.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D58C31E08F; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 14:23:51 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from USTX2EX-DAG1MB3.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.27.103) by ustx2ex-dag1mb2.msg.corp.akamai.com (172.27.27.102) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1076.9; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 09:23:51 -0500
Received: from USTX2EX-DAG1MB3.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.27.103]) by ustx2ex-dag1mb3.msg.corp.akamai.com ([172.27.27.103]) with mapi id 15.00.1076.000; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 09:23:51 -0500
From: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>
To: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>, Henrik Grubbström <grubba@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [TLS] Should we require implementations to send alerts?
Thread-Index: AQHQ7ZzRXiF8eR64702QgV0xDHj+tJ496p4AgAA1VACAASZegIAAHmEAgAAAvgD//9XL8A==
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 14:23:50 +0000
Message-ID: <83965de13856484ea9ff4e9fad212a73@ustx2ex-dag1mb3.msg.corp.akamai.com>
References: <CABcZeBPnO4zn_HkvwLpLC+EVYN8EKOBEsR80oRt3HZgsiNGDoQ@mail.gmail.com> <55F81AA6.2040107@redhat.com> <20150915162921.GG13294@localhost> <55F93E51.50001@redhat.com> <CALuAYvaTVtPf=XXC8xhFA4AEgZ=qYHH8mBSMkoWKQb+bOgniNw@mail.gmail.com> <55F9586C.6000104@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <55F9586C.6000104@redhat.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: [172.19.35.154]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/K_L8O129bSuXJuw2lijMkrkaMtg>
Cc: "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Should we require implementations to send alerts?
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: <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, 16 Sep 2015 14:24:24 -0000

 
> With full-duplex connections, it does not make a difference.  TCP will still
> detect a data loss event, send the RST segment, and discard the queued fatal
> alert.

Yes, it might be hard(er) to do the right thing.  We should not penalize everyone because of that.

v2.39.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status