Re: [TLS] Should we require implementations to send alerts?
Hubert Kario <hkario@redhat.com> Mon, 21 September 2015 10:36 UTC
Return-Path: <hkario@redhat.com>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 643211B3056 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 03:36:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.012
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.012 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_40=-0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 FgvPPwL1TEg6 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 03:35:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4C10E1B3055 for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 03:35:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B696F461C8; Mon, 21 Sep 2015 10:35:58 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pintsize.usersys.redhat.com (dhcp-0-251.brq.redhat.com [10.34.0.251]) by int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t8LAZuKI010986 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Mon, 21 Sep 2015 06:35:58 -0400
From: Hubert Kario <hkario@redhat.com>
To: Bill Frantz <frantz@pwpconsult.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2015 12:35:55 +0200
Message-ID: <9623382.T7XJxfISNY@pintsize.usersys.redhat.com>
User-Agent: KMail/4.14.9 (Linux/4.1.6-201.fc22.x86_64; KDE/4.14.9; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <r422Ps-1075i-3B82546B4DC5476384C28CF00E026822@Williams-MacBook-Pro.local>
References: <r422Ps-1075i-3B82546B4DC5476384C28CF00E026822@Williams-MacBook-Pro.local>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart2142032.JjEvDIbTuD"; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.24
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/XRVa5eIQ8BVot8G_4oxKLm0_Z7w>
Cc: tls@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [TLS] Should we require implementations to send alerts?
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 21 Sep 2015 10:36:00 -0000
On Friday 18 September 2015 15:13:37 Bill Frantz wrote: > On 9/18/15 at 4:27 AM, hkario@redhat.com (Hubert Kario) wrote: > >except that a TLS1.3 version intolerant implementation won't > >show its ugly head until TLS1.4 gets deployed > > Is there a reason a test suite can't offer TLS 1.4, even if we > don't know what it is? There is no reason. In fact, any test suite should basically start with this (it being one of the very first fields the server needs to handle). > The TLS implementation under test should > gracefully step back to TLS 1.3. correct -- Regards, Hubert Kario Quality Engineer, QE BaseOS Security team Web: www.cz.redhat.com Red Hat Czech s.r.o., Purkyňova 99/71, 612 45, Brno, Czech Republic
- [TLS] Should we require implementations to send a… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [TLS] Should we require implementations to se… Martin Thomson
- Re: [TLS] Should we require implementations to se… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [TLS] Should we require implementations to se… Geoffrey Keating
- Re: [TLS] Should we require implementations to se… Martin Thomson
- Re: [TLS] Should we require implementations to se… Salz, Rich
- Re: [TLS] Should we require implementations to se… Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: [TLS] Should we require implementations to se… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [TLS] Should we require implementations to se… Dave Garrett
- Re: [TLS] Should we require implementations to se… Andrei Popov
- Re: [TLS] Should we require implementations to se… Hanno Böck
- Re: [TLS] Should we require implementations to se… Florian Weimer
- Re: [TLS] Should we require implementations to se… Salz, Rich
- Re: [TLS] Should we require implementations to se… Nico Williams
- Re: [TLS] Should we require implementations to se… Florian Weimer
- Re: [TLS] Should we require implementations to se… Henrik Grubbström
- Re: [TLS] Should we require implementations to se… Florian Weimer
- Re: [TLS] Should we require implementations to se… Salz, Rich
- Re: [TLS] Should we require implementations to se… Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: [TLS] Should we require implementations to se… Dave Garrett
- Re: [TLS] Should we require implementations to se… Jim Schaad
- Re: [TLS] Should we require implementations to se… Nico Williams
- Re: [TLS] Should we require implementations to se… Nico Williams
- Re: [TLS] Should we require implementations to se… Brian Smith
- Re: [TLS] Should we require implementations to se… Florian Weimer
- Re: [TLS] Should we require implementations to se… Hubert Kario
- Re: [TLS] Should we require implementations to se… Brian Smith
- Re: [TLS] Should we require implementations to se… Nico Williams
- Re: [TLS] Should we require implementations to se… Brian Smith
- Re: [TLS] Should we require implementations to se… Dave Garrett
- Re: [TLS] Should we require implementations to se… Nico Williams
- Re: [TLS] Should we require implementations to se… Nico Williams
- Re: [TLS] Should we require implementations to se… Dave Garrett
- Re: [TLS] Should we require implementations to se… Martin Thomson
- Re: [TLS] Should we require implementations to se… Brian Smith
- Re: [TLS] Should we require implementations to se… Nico Williams
- Re: [TLS] Should we require implementations to se… Brian Smith
- Re: [TLS] Should we require implementations to se… Nico Williams
- Re: [TLS] Should we require implementations to se… Dave Garrett
- Re: [TLS] Should we require implementations to se… Dave Garrett
- Re: [TLS] Should we require implementations to se… David Benjamin
- Re: [TLS] Should we require implementations to se… Brian Smith
- Re: [TLS] Should we require implementations to se… Brian Smith
- Re: [TLS] Should we require implementations to se… Dave Garrett
- Re: [TLS] Should we require implementations to se… Dave Garrett
- Re: [TLS] Should we require implementations to se… Martin Rex
- Re: [TLS] Should we require implementations to se… Brian Smith
- Re: [TLS] Should we require implementations to se… Dave Garrett
- Re: [TLS] Should we require implementations to se… Dave Garrett
- Re: [TLS] Should we require implementations to se… Brian Smith
- Re: [TLS] Should we require implementations to se… David Benjamin
- Re: [TLS] Should we require implementations to se… Hubert Kario
- Re: [TLS] Should we require implementations to se… Hubert Kario
- Re: [TLS] Should we require implementations to se… Brian Smith
- Re: [TLS] Should we require implementations to se… Benjamin Kaduk
- Re: [TLS] Should we require implementations to se… Tony Arcieri
- Re: [TLS] Should we require implementations to se… Dave Garrett
- Re: [TLS] Should we require implementations to se… Bill Frantz
- Re: [TLS] Should we require implementations to se… Kurt Roeckx
- Re: [TLS] Should we require implementations to se… Kurt Roeckx
- Re: [TLS] Should we require implementations to se… Viktor Dukhovni
- Re: [TLS] Should we require implementations to se… Hubert Kario
- Re: [TLS] Should we require implementations to se… Hubert Kario