IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] Thoughts on Version Intolerance

Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com> Wed, 20 July 2016 13:24 UTC

Return-Path: <watsonbladd@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 A4F4412D5D3 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 06:24:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.7
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.7 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-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 Jv1kyPTM3TcU for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 06:24:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vk0-x232.google.com (mail-vk0-x232.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c05::232]) (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 6AA7F12D130 for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 06:24:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vk0-x232.google.com with SMTP id n129so23289602vke.3 for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 06:24:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=tFDioV++81bp0jJHct0dhV0wJMBJ5ldhfLAyijYvJtk=; b=hqTEvJrWVM+nqq6GPKR2SCuDo7UBh6kgp0hOwkT9VReaw17V55axLgFkfKEiwNewXl zGQLzxG0WC5iOvfJnSDME6dhcSWbzOKBSwwG+CZ3TtlBnps9HNIHftGdvmTBgAvyXHFP Lm/f71eWUF5YKCmAKLN6dYRn56h+Hr2FGGUaz8GbLFDWAFvTzzf6zAHGGu7aWSP8zYry sY2UVnXFlkbGDj9FaC0ZEIK48kngLM8ztOBQOft3xRlTrlz6ywmOQrcbZeY/H1RVCzyE IQRIzt/bRX2HMdEdtjqqG4coDILZtbzolJcBLCG0W9wL7bikgHpQNwFZhXRnXRRfk36t VCTg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=tFDioV++81bp0jJHct0dhV0wJMBJ5ldhfLAyijYvJtk=; b=XDzGB1LzMEEaUpGRJYAsnCeemnOMK4LCH+16YM7j10BiS7O0u3NBDwoG3+z38gN7iu r4ntO5K0kv4y/8865wETWhSM47+PNabN5J4P4k+2mHN00kc4O6qc1ypznKKT3R06anMG Qa+hvGNhZXYpc23gae6sZpk/mUNRD8RUmcg2XtpWDvdQg4u5NDIeDWr9TTb8OhyvG40f oUrvdFykUwYvi0nrxGjN9RXMWDeYDXOQZynGJB1+Z2xY6DFEnN+pXbhHC8DxlV/RxvdI laRySavB17uWjalhjd43qxQBArszbGiWZDYjRKkwRMEcR8/9w8KKMRuEtLbGQivCvD9b E5Ew==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tL4My9j5FnwAIbKw06PLbzFZ69ul2vaHDiwb6MOyHLeiFiXVNoSBviDcD+0snoY5SrWVca+2hfaujO9Aw==
X-Received: by 10.31.93.129 with SMTP id r123mr22985478vkb.149.1469021091484; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 06:24:51 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.159.39.194 with HTTP; Wed, 20 Jul 2016 06:24:50 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1577215.bshq0AhCfG@pintsize.usersys.redhat.com>
References: <20160720101402.09EC41A504@ld9781.wdf.sap.corp> <7776970.MmWSFEWlvc@pintsize.usersys.redhat.com> <CAJU8_nV9bcvTBL=x0Q2Q7QNDm+BXswXPZZ75tZ3g=Uw_yO_o8w@mail.gmail.com> <1577215.bshq0AhCfG@pintsize.usersys.redhat.com>
From: Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2016 06:24:50 -0700
Message-ID: <CACsn0c=+0YNBUKrFYiXsQCZyDkAbnyf8yxggwXw3ToA-kz1QKg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Hubert Kario <hkario@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/VAa8T33BgogaJXOGzFjB8qsNpWk>
Cc: "<tls@ietf.org>" <tls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Thoughts on Version Intolerance
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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, 20 Jul 2016 13:24:54 -0000

On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 6:13 AM, Hubert Kario <hkario@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, 20 July 2016 14:49:03 CEST Kyle Rose wrote:
<snip>
> I think that implementing complex binary cryptographic protocols is simply
> hard.
>
And what conclusion should one draw about TLS 2.0 (*ahem* 1.3) as a
result of this realization?

One hopes the IETF manages to avoid overcomplicating (extending and
supporting necessary usecases actually) QUIC. I've given up on any
substantial improvements in TLS.

Sincerely,
Watson

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email