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

Marsh Ray <marsh@extendedsubset.com> Fri, 18 December 2009 20:46 UTC

Return-Path: <marsh@extendedsubset.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 516353A6AD1 for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Dec 2009 12:46:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.592
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.592 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.007, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 IPBmJqYr9owc for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 18 Dec 2009 12:46:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org (mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org [204.13.248.71]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 989483A6ACD for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 18 Dec 2009 12:46:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from xs01.extendedsubset.com ([69.164.193.58]) by mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from <marsh@extendedsubset.com>) id 1NLji7-000J13-EK; Fri, 18 Dec 2009 20:46:03 +0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xs01.extendedsubset.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 514196678; Fri, 18 Dec 2009 20:46:02 +0000 (UTC)
X-Mail-Handler: MailHop Outbound by DynDNS
X-Originating-IP: 69.164.193.58
X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see http://www.dyndns.com/services/mailhop/outbound_abuse.html for abuse reporting information)
X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX1/OMpUo6qi+kSDTTQYC5ogewb92WBeD9sc=
Message-ID: <4B2BEA09.2030307@extendedsubset.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 14:46:01 -0600
From: Marsh Ray <marsh@extendedsubset.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Michael D'Errico <mike-list@pobox.com>
References: <200912181944.nBIJiLMU005565@fs4113.wdf.sap.corp> <4B2BE246.9040307@extendedsubset.com> <4B2BE7EC.7010309@pobox.com>
In-Reply-To: <4B2BE7EC.7010309@pobox.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0
OpenPGP: id=1E36DBF2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: TLS Mailing List <tls@ietf.org>
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: Fri, 18 Dec 2009 20:46:19 -0000

Michael D'Errico wrote:
> Marsh Ray wrote:
>> Come up with a way to complete a sentence that begins with
>> "TLS_RENEGO_PROTECTION_REQUEST is" or "SCSV means" such that it
>> describes the three cases for it in a reasonably consistent way.
> 
> "In the absence of an RI extension, SCSV conveys the same meaning
> as an empty RI.  When RI is present, SCSV is ignored."

Hmmm...doesn't quite meet the stated requirements.

- Marsh