Re: [TLS] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-tls-rfc2246-bis-11.txt

Bodo Moeller <bmoeller@acm.org> writes:

> On Wed, May 18, 2005 at 03:51:12PM -0400, Internet-Drafts@ietf.org wrote:
>
>> 	Title		: The TLS Protocol Version 1.1
>> 	Author(s)	: T. Dierks, E. Rescorla
>> 	Filename	: draft-ietf-tls-rfc2246-bis-11.txt
>> 	Pages		: 90
>> 	Date		: 2005-5-18
>
>> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-tls-rfc2246-bis-11.txt
>
> This new ID does not yet correct the inconsistencies for some field
> and type names pointed out in
> <URL:http://www.imc.org/ietf-tls/mail-archive/msg04525.html>,
> reproduced below.
OK. I'll fix this.

> But first, here's a new comment:
>
> 7.4.7.1. RSA encrypted premaster secret message
>
>        [...]                                         In practice, since
>        there are no significant known security differences between TLS
>        and SSLv3, rollback to SSLv3 is not believed to be a serious
>        security risk.
>
> Discussing "security differences between TLS and SSLv3" is a little
> odd because this sounds like comparing two protocol versions.  But in
> fact this specification defines TLS 1.1, so there are three protocol
> versions to take into account.  And there are security differences
> both between SSL 3.0 and TLS 1.0 *and* between TLS 1.0 and TLS 1.1:
> TLS 1.1 uses explicit IVs for CBC encryption to avoid deficiencies
> present in both earlier versions; SSL 3.0 has additional weaknesses
> due to its failure to completely specify block cipher padding
> (as I pointed out in
> http://www.imc.org/ietf-tls/mail-archive/msg03983.html).

Right. I'll rewrite this.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> Section 7.4.3 defines
>
>        struct {
>            opaque rsa_modulus<1..2^16-1>;
>            opaque rsa_exponent<1..2^16-1>;
>        } ServerRSAParams;
>
>        struct {
>            opaque dh_p<1..2^16-1>;
>            opaque dh_g<1..2^16-1>;
>            opaque dh_Ys<1..2^16-1>;
>        } ServerDHParams;     /* Ephemeral DH parameters */
>
> but Appendix A.4.2 has capitalized versions of the names.
>
>     struct {
>         opaque RSA_modulus<1..2^16-1>;
>         opaque RSA_exponent<1..2^16-1>;
>     } ServerRSAParams;
>
>     struct {
>         opaque DH_p<1..2^16-1>;
>         opaque DH_g<1..2^16-1>;
>         opaque DH_Ys<1..2^16-1>;
>     } ServerDHParams;
>
> Generally, the principle appears to be that field names should be
> [mostly] lower-case, with capital letters reserved for type names,
> so it's A.4.2 that should be changed.
>
>
> And in A.4.3, the type definition for ClientKeyExchange refers to a
> "DiffieHellmanClientPublicValue" type.  But this should actually
> be "ClientDiffieHellmanPublic".

OK. 

-Ekr

_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls