Re: [TLS] PR#625: Change alert requirements (Martin Rex) Wed, 07 September 2016 18:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6AC0412B60A for <>; Wed, 7 Sep 2016 11:45:33 -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 6v-ULsiR2HxX for <>; Wed, 7 Sep 2016 11:45:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ACF4212B614 for <>; Wed, 7 Sep 2016 11:45:17 -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 3sTspg4ftFz25dm; Wed, 7 Sep 2016 20:45:15 +0200 (CEST)
X-purgate-ID: 152705::1473273915-000035F6-1FA379DE/0/0
X-purgate-size: 1499
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 3sTspf3jrzzky09; Wed, 7 Sep 2016 20:45:14 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 10159) id 7C1291A54F; Wed, 7 Sep 2016 20:45:14 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <>
To: Andrei Popov <>
Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2016 20:45:14 +0200
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] PR#625: Change alert requirements
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: Wed, 07 Sep 2016 18:45:33 -0000

Andrei Popov wrote:
>>> the only popular stack I found that does not seem to send alerts is 
>>> the schannel from Microsoft
> To clarify, schannel does generate alerts per RFC, but the HTTP stack
> (which actually owns the socket) sees no value in sending them.

"Pillows don't hit people, people do." ;-)

When operating with a transport-less (i.e. opaque-PDUs-only) API,
it is somewhat unusal to having an API call _fail_ *and* return output
parameters & transport requests at the same time.  Higher layer programmers
(and the exception-style programming) often do not expect having to
deal with both.

I actually notice just now that Microsoft Win32 SSPI DeleteSecurityContext()
(Microsoft's incarnation of GSS-API) does not have a final/context-deletion
token output parameter.

In the original (DEC given to IETF) GSS-API design, the "final token"
was not meant to be emitted by a failing context iterator call along with
a fatal error code, but by a _successful_ call to gss_delete_sec_context().

I'm actually confused--where does SChannel return that TLS alert PDU
(and along with with what kind of API return code)?

Admittedly, for applications on top of GSS-API (rfc2743/rfc2744) it is
quite common to _not_ bother conveying the optional(!) context deletion
token that may be produced by GSS-API's gss_delete_sec_context(), and
the GSS-APIv2 spec acknowledged this being a common app behaviour,
and deprecated the context deletion token.