Re: [TLS] WGLC for draft-ietf-tls-ticketrequests

Hubert Kario <hkario@redhat.com> Thu, 23 January 2020 11:57 UTC

Return-Path: <hkario@redhat.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 43C7E120071 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 03:57:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5QWDSdw352Xz for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 03:57:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from us-smtp-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-1.mimecast.com [205.139.110.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1ED212004C for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 03:57:37 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1579780656; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=bXLRFMUmMKpVEreaz3aGpcdY87l1iremn2IMPPRDxh0=; b=EbwJwjtqu/6Bjdh9CmS+NRBZTAuPDm6zJkeTcy7kdIwQMcQAwYHgXaMK5BWq3EJJlno/9C PzBJdzW6qUYT36JI0ElUEAQYDa5X6CgU1PYW7qr44w4eE1M3fz6+3aIx0xuRpbBWi8Fhy7 8fV85t99UY9j9jJ8I6qld1On2e1GsSI=
Received: from mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (mimecast-mx01.redhat.com [209.132.183.4]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-232-fqcjeZKTMBi5soGcU4oeSw-1; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 06:57:34 -0500
Received: from smtp.corp.redhat.com (int-mx03.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mimecast-mx01.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 830B98017CC for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 11:57:33 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (unknown [10.43.21.107]) by smtp.corp.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 305EE8CCDB for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 11:57:32 +0000 (UTC)
From: Hubert Kario <hkario@redhat.com>
To: <tls@ietf.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 12:57:31 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <87427017-551e-4633-a0d3-75f378879aa9@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <20200123021455.GA73491@straasha.imrryr.org>
References: <5FBFE820-8C53-4B32-9520-343279C1A6CC@apple.com> <20191120064819.GR34850@straasha.imrryr.org> <CAPDSy+6DFJ+OYRtYK6eEiUt1noiik4KxqrGFx0ro_RL2Mft_VA@mail.gmail.com> <fd37bd2a-c799-4bf4-95b3-65943681683b@www.fastmail.com> <20200121055411.GJ73491@straasha.imrryr.org> <97de6364-c628-45aa-8613-ba1a32cc41b2@www.fastmail.com> <A5448AC9-6EBB-48F9-A1B0-A787FBBCFF05@akamai.com> <08A4B0CD-9903-4027-B672-E8C7AFB34B4D@akamai.com> <20200123005528.GA12073@localhost> <CAN2QdAH7t4fPgBfBSO7Ni1As2bVB9QvCw1s9j0ggqvTRUATE8A@mail.gmail.com> <20200123021455.GA73491@straasha.imrryr.org>
Organization: Red Hat
User-Agent: Trojita/0.7; Qt/5.12.5; xcb; Linux; Fedora release 30 (Thirty)
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.79 on 10.5.11.13
X-MC-Unique: fqcjeZKTMBi5soGcU4oeSw-1
X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0
X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/TYdabWrH1y3UuR2E855ElIRtpSc>
Subject: Re: [TLS] WGLC for draft-ietf-tls-ticketrequests
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 23 Jan 2020 11:57:40 -0000

On Thursday, 23 January 2020 03:14:55 CET, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 05:12:34PM -0800, Watson Ladd wrote:
>
>>>  - either the TLS server says "here's a ticket and you MUST or MAY
>>>    replace the one you already had"
>>> 
>>>    or
>>> 
>>>  - the TLS client gets to ask for no unnecessary new tickets
>>> 
>>> Now the first alternative would be infeasible to adopt because it would
>>> require new OpenSSL callback APIs, and anyways would be a more invasive
>>> change to TLS than the ticketrequest extension makes.
>> 
>> Nothing says you have to remember tickets, so unless I'm missing
>> something the semantics already are the second one.
>
> I want to use tickets for resumption, so naturally I have to remember
> them.  I also don't actually get to directly see the tickets, rather
> OpenSSL invokes a "new_session_cb" callback after updating the current
> session with newly received tickets.
>
> Since I have a shared cache, I have to perform the work of storing the
> updated sesion, so that other SMTP delivery agents get to see the new
> ticket.
>
> I can't just ignore the ticket, since the reason for the new ticket may
> be that the old one has expired, either after some period of reuse, or
> because the server only ever issues single-use tickets.
>
> The deployed base of Postfix servers issues multi-use tickets (always,
> there's no extension to tell me otherwise), and sends zero tickets
> on resumption, so I need to not just throw away tickets that are
> still valid.

I wonder if the approach with a database with strict ACID-ity is the 
correct
one for ticket storage.

What I mean, is that, especially in postfix case, using slightly older 
ticket
that it could will have minimal impact on the connection. Thus a database
that is basically append only, with clients that look for newest ticket
(and disregard races on this lookup) and a garbage-collection process that
removes old tickets every few hours will work ok.
-- 
Regards,
Hubert Kario
Senior Quality Engineer, QE BaseOS Security team
Web: www.cz.redhat.com
Red Hat Czech s.r.o., Purky┼łova 115, 612 00  Brno, Czech Republic