Re: [TLS] renegotiation draft needs clarification !!

Michael D'Errico <mike-list@pobox.com> Thu, 12 November 2009 04:22 UTC

Return-Path: <mike-list@pobox.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 15CF928C1DD for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:22:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.575
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.575 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.024, 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 TaIJHxDisJ2t for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:22:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com [208.72.237.25]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 27CD828C1DA for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:22:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79C2C7DB92 for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Nov 2009 23:22:37 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=message-id :date:from:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=1ewCI4VWYvom IcJgZ4YtkNf1wrE=; b=aRtkZgaWp2ZMbdSecIqmhW2MpPihBBBMQERPpELQ+9Aj cU+ScOTi6Aj8YNLvHQZFhcOWcri3D1LXt0htY+SD//fnU4KeOA55ARBEkWq0RHwJ h0H+wVDPKojuRe9fOOBg1KCkxWSRBJ03qoq+awqsE4JKIDKvK1YUlfefLYpkTiM=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=message-id:date :from:mime-version:to:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sasl; b=Tg2/9Q N2Fk6fswJyj+dShdAq98REV6na2hAL8GUWtnrbTXmJibzbMHayycKBqM92fRTB5z FkMkk/tApyrQewsVqdOHfwoHnCfDeiF5Ab0Jixa3xymHW85CawZoW8Pjb/IOoH0O MCpuJseAb3hOy7GPAnheXHWDkHqM5GTj7ELMI=
Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix. (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 779607DB91 for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Nov 2009 23:22:37 -0500 (EST)
Received: from administrators-macbook-pro.local (unknown [24.234.114.35]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2380D7DB8F for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Nov 2009 23:22:36 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <4AFB8DC0.3060502@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:23:28 -0800
From: Michael D'Errico <mike-list@pobox.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Macintosh/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tls@ietf.org
References: <4AFB64FA.1060505@bolyard.me> <e8c553a60911111748m44921264s44cfc8fcc34c21fd@mail.gmail.com> <4AFB728C.9050102@bolyard.me> <4AFB8502.60102@pobox.com> <4AFB8AA8.3040802@jacaranda.org>
In-Reply-To: <4AFB8AA8.3040802@jacaranda.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 0236FDEA-CF43-11DE-AFAF-9F3FEE7EF46B-38729857!a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com
Subject: Re: [TLS] renegotiation draft needs clarification !!
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, 12 Nov 2009 04:22:10 -0000

David-Sarah Hopwood wrote:
> Michael D'Errico wrote:
>>>>> This leads to two different encodings, which are:
>>>>>
>>>>>  FF 01 00 00
>>>>>
>>>>>  FF 01 00 01 00
> 
> Good catch.

I can't take credit for finding that -- it was Nelson.

Mike

>> I will selfishly vote for the second choice since that is
>> how I implemented it, though it would be easy to change.
> 
> The second choice is slightly more regular, in that the empty and
> non-empty versions of the extension data have the same type.