Re: [TLS] Are we holding TLS wrong?

David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 14 November 2018 20:19 UTC

Return-Path: <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.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 064F0130DC9; Wed, 14 Nov 2018 12:19:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 ld_A9y9IW1us; Wed, 14 Nov 2018 12:19:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pg1-x52a.google.com (mail-pg1-x52a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C0221294D0; Wed, 14 Nov 2018 12:19:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pg1-x52a.google.com with SMTP id 17so7608394pgg.1; Wed, 14 Nov 2018 12:19:16 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=+jXxm32hJhAYKLe+S8qll0VEcLA7SzkVMwga8JfFAoE=; b=HCjfqYr4w+oKNxZLof2exG5+8poaQaGF8A16aheRbZ0rOwM5l69Ptmp2y8ihYdyFaX PYeUK+WcMr/GGpPNjHGr24cwNZgII8NduZWt4eJ+6onZvjdDZcOs3CZfcKNKMUwa2BAH jmiEJeyBclTKy2A6BHxBp2xD/yQ1Cs00B8RaWy7f2Q+5AVeBnPT9EbLiu+CYC8xMzpPP EF2C5xHdC8lMqdy/Aj6v/z6ncwDO6SbRLak7pkxEl0VHlMu9BHVScDRacAgz7ZILfQfs ax0ss2BoPkaPqwjbBLDaY6sWN1ebbPESCk10REgYyvZ/eKf3XI05QsTI1PMnOXlF819a NR/w==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=+jXxm32hJhAYKLe+S8qll0VEcLA7SzkVMwga8JfFAoE=; b=iXahD4WU2o+nRHCoIswZm4xBDWDLhdVoMBtNlclDvTN3ml+zK0CPFC/3yCZJQhkZ1B 4ZdJkSUXi6H5vomqj+FOq24yHwFgfoeggq4bdgNTpkXuWK72IbFPM/f26JUlUPMtBzaA RDGeym2rIfN31J+w4QaQePwLRqp0JCzq9h8Glqhwsr9gUI3OY/K8ws18/jF/13dD2opQ Zt5l6zpUSP5RtauFJTZNRejBbjDklv5Aemr2VukurlqIfbfUfmv5s0h7ikLz760kWC4G roM6EIhUweUvDov02zhZxzqLmw+QQsxQQFFGp16dkdFmGKXIoZnjGhuCdT6oJmbZ0a4S KWgg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gIoz3Y03F78jGboda+2rYMcn/HC/Cyor9Vpud4VtfKPybUDvzfE RMpLeNbyo/r3mmiFArETCpsFJ7wZqClGqZ/JgsxV+sxU
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5drUod/wAk2Oum1ww4OGNw+rx1CUq760xhCop5A6AfZraAIqDQzfKsViv1ksGZcjP5EPgUmi2QHk6af49inYpU=
X-Received: by 2002:a65:5286:: with SMTP id y6mr3065310pgp.439.1542226755532; Wed, 14 Nov 2018 12:19:15 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAPDSy+7-ceNNLJpFK0Z4SitBaUgxTpxiea8Z0QtpeSr+MNLKFg@mail.gmail.com> <20181108043010.GA11967@nokia.com> <CAPDSy+6u_5WgdQVALWYqcza+PhDq4s8GDNB29SRGHkhcj3j6OQ@mail.gmail.com> <874lckirji.wl-jch@irif.fr>
In-Reply-To: <874lckirji.wl-jch@irif.fr>
From: David Schinazi <dschinazi.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2018 12:19:04 -0800
Message-ID: <CAPDSy+72YqBG+PnyCFv6SRc4s3p7ThwDN6oMU9vMD13fx+3vqA@mail.gmail.com>
To: tls@ietf.org
Cc: draft-ietf-babel-dtls@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000ed3b7e057aa5a5ad"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/TZ9Fipqx5qK0ubEtdpXh_JJVc2U>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Are we holding TLS wrong?
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: Wed, 14 Nov 2018 20:19:18 -0000

Hi everyone,

Thanks again for your feedback, we've updated the document to reflect it:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-babel-dtls-02
https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-ietf-babel-dtls-02

David

On Tue, Nov 13, 2018 at 1:41 PM Juliusz Chroboczek <jch@irif.fr>; wrote:

> >     - s2.5 Not sure what the ceremonies around flushing a neighbor are,
> >     but I'd make explicit signalling EOD at least a SHOULD? It seems more
> >     polite :-)
>
> > I agree, I upgraded politeness to a SHOULD.
>
> Note however that a neighbour is usually discarded when we loose too many
> Hellos from it.  At that point, we've lost contact with the neighbour,
> it's too late to be polite.
>
> -- Juliusz
>