Re: [TLS] TLS 1.2 Long-term Support Profile draft posted

Peter Gutmann <> Fri, 18 March 2016 09:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7B5D412D538 for <>; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 02:06:05 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id eXWtkCVaUp8Q for <>; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 02:06:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 142E612D7A4 for <>; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 02:06:03 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;;; q=dns/txt; s=mail; t=1458291964; x=1489827964; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:references:in-reply-to: content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=zmxHfO98Zryva6wNHjp8TUO+yyQeYEhQIapk0CucxTM=; b=3dY1zyLxTsy8ePiRGODHk9uS8ftmImSTrhrQLoD6c7EomyFhvagftG3s kMX3RgSdHXdZ5CrfvAoiS6E3z8yAJ8+gVPC2pKB5CbB/WpJASISbjejMb l1HTx2qy8zwVo/2YsvOiKPhEug07VcT0SOCdMaGDaSMVRgUDC9hmATV/O qK6AouoFcb6rDtaLfZyAJAo7/9JITWgPp0ZmyTBPxR6fQ5oeuiwCg3JzO ViBMmV7gjbYw9SIxmtlemZzfHgMnY3bzPlyJfUvA30Nc+rp41gkfNPcAo 9SAcx3FZiu/qtA0hZCmuO79VbUPIZ2fvHCudUYVqJj6yguIKxeqXXIcax w==;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.24,354,1454929200"; d="scan'208";a="75065518"
X-Ironport-Source: - Outgoing - Outgoing
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/AES256-SHA; 18 Mar 2016 22:05:50 +1300
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0266.001; Fri, 18 Mar 2016 22:05:50 +1300
From: Peter Gutmann <>
To: Dave Garrett <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [TLS] TLS 1.2 Long-term Support Profile draft posted
Thread-Index: AdF/gGiJXC2ZI/lER3iVToFYg5p2egANbZiAAE/Mgtw=
Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 09:05:50 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>, <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-NZ, en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-NZ
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [TLS] TLS 1.2 Long-term Support Profile draft posted
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." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2016 09:06:05 -0000

Dave Garrett <> writes:

I've already replied to the other parts in an earlier reply, leaving:

>The big glaring problem, however, in multiple places, are the statements that
>something is "implicit in TLS-LTS, there is no need to signal it" via its
>designated extension. No! These features MUST be implemented in full,
>according to their specifications, such that they will work fully with
>servers that support them but not this new LTS proposal. Skimping on this
>just makes this messy situation even messier, which is the opposite of what
>you're trying to do here.

Good point, I've changed the text to say that for TLS-LTS purposes you don't
need it, but you do if you need to interop with non-LTS servers/clients.