Re: [TLS] Sending fatal alerts over TCP

Marsh Ray <marsh@extendedsubset.com> Wed, 21 December 2011 19:25 UTC

Return-Path: <marsh@extendedsubset.com>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5B451F0C4D for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 11:25:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xx0lTIPgJYy0 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 11:25:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org (mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org [204.13.248.72]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 242B91F0C4C for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 11:25:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from xs01.extendedsubset.com ([69.164.193.58]) by mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <marsh@extendedsubset.com>) id 1RdRmd-00065C-Nd; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 19:24:59 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.15] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xs01.extendedsubset.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEAC46067; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 19:24:57 +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+NxUj9lcy84520Zi2BFKppD4yCeSIR6gw=
Message-ID: <4EF2328A.9060604@extendedsubset.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 13:24:58 -0600
From: Marsh Ray <marsh@extendedsubset.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.23) Gecko/20110921 Thunderbird/3.1.15
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: mrex@sap.com
References: <201112211913.pBLJDXBM014049@fs4113.wdf.sap.corp>
In-Reply-To: <201112211913.pBLJDXBM014049@fs4113.wdf.sap.corp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: tls@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [TLS] Sending fatal alerts over TCP
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <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: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 19:25:01 -0000

On 12/21/2011 01:13 PM, Martin Rex wrote:
>
> Unless the local application performs a shutdown(), the TCP implementation
> of Y MUST continue to deliver data that was received.

This seems relevant http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc793

> [when in state:] ESTABLISHED  FIN-WAIT-1 FIN-WAIT-2 CLOSE-WAIT
>
>         If the RST bit is set then, any outstanding RECEIVEs and SEND
>         should receive "reset" responses.  All segment queues should be
>         flushed.  Users should also receive an unsolicited general
>         "connection reset" signal.  Enter the CLOSED state, delete the
>         TCB, and return.

This part about "all segment queues should be flushed" suggests to me 
that received-but-undelivered application data MAY or SHOULD be 
discarded. Deleting the TCB altogether certainly sounds final.

- Marsh