Re: [TLS] Please be specific: RI alone, RI with MCSV, or MCSV alone

Marsh Ray <marsh@extendedsubset.com> Thu, 10 December 2009 18:53 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 3AFA33A68D1 for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Dec 2009 10:53:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.593
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.593 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.006, 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 nqunIx1L-o0K for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Dec 2009 10:53:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org (mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org [204.13.248.72]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A1743A68C8 for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Dec 2009 10:53:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from xs01.extendedsubset.com ([69.164.193.58]) by mho-02-ewr.mailhop.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from <marsh@extendedsubset.com>) id 1NIo8m-0008yU-Mo; Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:53:28 +0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xs01.extendedsubset.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9845F603A; Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:53:23 +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/JfXVigSOrTPVh/dCBXLefnMbRCipyw+o=
Message-ID: <4B2143A1.6020000@extendedsubset.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 12:53:21 -0600
From: Marsh Ray <marsh@extendedsubset.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>
References: <p062408c2c746ec9c71b9@[75.101.18.87]>
In-Reply-To: <p062408c2c746ec9c71b9@[75.101.18.87]>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0
OpenPGP: id=1E36DBF2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: tls@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [TLS] Please be specific: RI alone, RI with MCSV, or MCSV alone
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: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:53:41 -0000

Paul Hoffman wrote:
> While following the numerous threads, it seems that some people are
> advocating adding MCSV to RI, while others are advocating RI by
> itself (no MCSV), while others are advocating MCSV by itself (instead
> of RI).

> Can people please be more specific which proposal they are
> advocating? It greatly affects the conversation. Thanks!

I am advocating draft-ietf-tls-renegotiation which includes MCSV.

I don't think anyone still is still advocating "RI without MCSV".

My interpretation of draft-mrex-tls-secure-renegotiation is that it uses
MCSV in Client Hello and a fixed empty extension in Server Hello. Martin
may describe it differently.

- Marsh