IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] Connection ID Draft

Benjamin Kaduk <bkaduk@akamai.com> Mon, 23 October 2017 21:22 UTC

Return-Path: <bkaduk@akamai.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 D79BE13A441 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 14:22:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=akamai.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 BrZiBPqgw9QZ for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 14:22:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9005:57f::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4964E13A42F for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 14:22:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0050102.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0050102.ppops.net-00190b01. (8.16.0.21/8.16.0.21) with SMTP id v9NLLYeM021762; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 22:22:32 +0100
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=subject : to : cc : references : from : message-id : date : mime-version : in-reply-to : content-type; s=jan2016.eng; bh=DCdU+mlXlQI/gOAcbODFaDc7lRrOegpKkajuzsHDLA8=; b=akixM4S4apDX/w+Hkv+TwU3dTkUwqcGbhc/PnZhFRcQPFxsLoVdtJ6yIdw7qVjipHox9 j8Zyjb+0lyZ6HLYsWoZ3ZjzyzpBI4HL1XU3dLAU3RB1loXwNjFNKypY/SufOHXyRbGWV 3Blv+AxS0OiPVdEPzzS7NePQWKAmX8yGLg4O5rtwRyH3VJtPMJKyzrOg5HcQ2+N+sTTt 09MEjFgFt2s887E2s8AWF7O+GFrhdgtJ/YLGg2kZ8rOa6VRf/2wHAIyC89G1hoxhaAPh HYQq7ZEj7If112w2Qsy+tyo8wQjaSxzlCxP8/R0E9QzYM2XIlsIXmdep7ZEIELrw6zlO GA==
Received: from prod-mail-ppoint3 ([96.6.114.86]) by m0050102.ppops.net-00190b01. with ESMTP id 2dquacywr9-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 23 Oct 2017 22:22:32 +0100
Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint3.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint3.akamai.com (8.16.0.21/8.16.0.21) with SMTP id v9NLKnFL008043; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 17:22:31 -0400
Received: from prod-mail-relay15.akamai.com ([172.27.17.40]) by prod-mail-ppoint3.akamai.com with ESMTP id 2dr1jvg376-1; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 17:22:31 -0400
Received: from [172.19.17.86] (bos-lpczi.kendall.corp.akamai.com [172.19.17.86]) by prod-mail-relay15.akamai.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 945AF201DB; Mon, 23 Oct 2017 15:22:29 -0600 (MDT)
To: yinxinxing <yinxinxing@huawei.com>
Cc: "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
References: <DBDF9AE44733284D808F0E585E1919022D14F6FB@dggeml511-mbs.china.huawei.com> <CABcZeBOJrTeFHbc9DQ86jkFV7EJv6x5AjwvSrfGDO3biyuuVNQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Benjamin Kaduk <bkaduk@akamai.com>
Message-ID: <d7620886-d92a-bc52-e15e-7f87702bd654@akamai.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 16:22:29 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBOJrTeFHbc9DQ86jkFV7EJv6x5AjwvSrfGDO3biyuuVNQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------2BA5A2AE279D4182E4889448"
Content-Language: en-US
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2017-10-23_11:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1707230000 definitions=main-1710230300
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2017-10-23_11:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1707230000 definitions=main-1710230300
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/XJCrgWq9bQgo2yQflLmRhB7CEvw>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Connection ID Draft
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Mon, 23 Oct 2017 21:22:42 -0000

On 10/23/2017 07:12 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
>      Another comment is about symmetrical CID.
>
>     1.       Consider a client sends a normal CID (CID length is not
>     zero, named C-CID) to server, but the server doesn’t wants to use
>     client’s CID and sends a CID generated by the server (named S-CID)
>     to the client.
>
> No. The CID is for the client's benefit, so why would this be useful?
>  
>
>     At the same time, client needs to know server has ignored C-CID
>     (which means the downlink application message from the server will
>     not include C-CID), and client will use S-CID in its application
>     message. Will the draft cover this scenario?
>
> No.

That is to say, this draft does not consider symmetrical CIDs at all.

-Ben

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email