IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] SCSV vs RI when both specified. Was: Updated draft

"Blumenthal, Uri - 0662 - MITLL" <uri@ll.mit.edu> Mon, 21 December 2009 00:56 UTC

Return-Path: <uri@ll.mit.edu>
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 AC69F3A68ED for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Dec 2009 16:56:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.598
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
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 a978ijuzSALf for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 20 Dec 2009 16:56:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ll.mit.edu (LLMAIL1.LL.MIT.EDU [129.55.12.41]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A92903A6857 for <tls@ietf.org>; Sun, 20 Dec 2009 16:56:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: (from smtp@localhost) by ll.mit.edu (8.12.10/8.8.8) id nBL0uDAA009061 for <tls@ietf.org>; Sun, 20 Dec 2009 19:56:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from lle2k7-hub01.llan.ll.mit.edu( ), claiming to be "LLE2K7-HUB01.mitll.ad.local" via SMTP by llpost, id smtpdAAAFYainq; Sun Dec 20 19:53:58 2009
Received: from LLE2K7-BE01.mitll.ad.local ([ ]) by LLE2K7-HUB01.mitll.ad.local ([ ]) with mapi; Sun, 20 Dec 2009 19:53:57 -0500
From: "Blumenthal, Uri - 0662 - MITLL" <uri@ll.mit.edu>
To: "'tls@ietf.org'" <tls@ietf.org>
Date: Sun, 20 Dec 2009 19:53:56 -0500
Thread-Topic: [TLS] SCSV vs RI when both specified. Was: Updated draft
Thread-Index: AcqBxVzyjJ1EhMYoQwKb4uPMSg4flAAErZfd
Message-ID: <90E934FC4BBC1946B3C27E673B4DB0E4A7EE854018@LLE2K7-BE01.mitll.ad.local>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [TLS] SCSV vs RI when both specified. Was: Updated draft
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: Mon, 21 Dec 2009 00:56:31 -0000

OK. Karlsruhe server time-outs on me, so no chance to get enlightened by checking that thread. Please indulge me: the one short compelling reason why we don't want to say "when two signals are present use this one and ignore the other" instead of "when two signals are present - abort connection" - is...?


----- Original Message -----
From: tls-bounces@ietf.org <tls-bounces@ietf.org>
To: Steve Checkoway <s@pahtak.org>
Cc: tls@ietf.org <tls@ietf.org>
Sent: Sun Dec 20 17:39:47 2009
Subject: Re: [TLS] SCSV vs RI when both specified. Was: Updated draft

Steve Checkoway wrote:
> 
> My point was merely that publication and subsequent implementation of  
> the fix is more important than worrying about the specifics of what  
> happens when two signals are used (as long as it is clearly specified,  
> of course). Others may feel differently.

http://digbib.ubka.uni-karlsruhe.de/volltexte/documents/1827

-Martin
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email