IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] WGLC for draft-ietf-tls-ticketrequests

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Thu, 23 January 2020 04:35 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.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 B7FAB12004F for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 20:35:54 -0800 (PST)
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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cryptonector.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 OqX4Fr6vpN21 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 20:35:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from egyptian.birch.relay.mailchannels.net (egyptian.birch.relay.mailchannels.net [23.83.209.56]) (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 4CA7212002F for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 20:35:52 -0800 (PST)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from relay.mailchannels.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 935105803B9; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 04:35:51 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a13.g.dreamhost.com (100-96-8-110.trex.outbound.svc.cluster.local [100.96.8.110]) (Authenticated sender: dreamhost) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id 18AFF58004D; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 04:35:51 +0000 (UTC)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a13.g.dreamhost.com ([TEMPUNAVAIL]. [64.90.62.162]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384) by 0.0.0.0:2500 (trex/5.18.5); Thu, 23 Jan 2020 04:35:51 +0000
X-MC-Relay: Neutral
X-MailChannels-SenderId: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: dreamhost
X-Oafish-Spill: 5f485b69212a2b34_1579754151346_4187319628
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1579754151346:4159651594
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1579754151345
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a13.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a13.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAEAB816E0; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 20:35:48 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h=date :from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to; s=cryptonector.com; bh=ve5/6RH4w6YTGd 33IZcTX5eTRkY=; b=lnTndyqcn5LfEyUSDgpSW69f2WMHSmrS2kmG+DL+6LgI+0 dCBlozcNnC3SZpfiPGuYDuMNpP7rYpFwtvyu/DTMqMRbGLxzVWxkzj/CEdKLWv6m i72PpoTajMP2D5PRte4Ltmlz+hrsmxvbVeY48U9Hr2BA1a0Vkk874AdhCrYHw=
Received: from localhost (unknown [24.28.108.183]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a13.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 97943816ED; Wed, 22 Jan 2020 20:35:45 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2020 22:35:43 -0600
X-DH-BACKEND: pdx1-sub0-mail-a13
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Watson Ladd <watson@cloudflare.com>
Cc: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz@akamai.com>, "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20200123043541.GC12073@localhost>
References: <20191120064819.GR34850@straasha.imrryr.org> <CAPDSy+6DFJ+OYRtYK6eEiUt1noiik4KxqrGFx0ro_RL2Mft_VA@mail.gmail.com> <fd37bd2a-c799-4bf4-95b3-65943681683b@www.fastmail.com> <20200121055411.GJ73491@straasha.imrryr.org> <97de6364-c628-45aa-8613-ba1a32cc41b2@www.fastmail.com> <A5448AC9-6EBB-48F9-A1B0-A787FBBCFF05@akamai.com> <08A4B0CD-9903-4027-B672-E8C7AFB34B4D@akamai.com> <20200123005528.GA12073@localhost> <CAN2QdAH7t4fPgBfBSO7Ni1As2bVB9QvCw1s9j0ggqvTRUATE8A@mail.gmail.com> <20200123043347.GB12073@localhost>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20200123043347.GB12073@localhost>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
X-VR-OUT-STATUS: OK
X-VR-OUT-SCORE: -100
X-VR-OUT-SPAMCAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedugedrvddugdeilecutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucggtfgfnhhsuhgsshgtrhhisggvpdfftffgtefojffquffvnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenucfjughrpeffhffvuffkfhggtggujggfsehttdertddtredvnecuhfhrohhmpefpihgtohcuhghilhhlihgrmhhsuceonhhitghosegtrhihphhtohhnvggtthhorhdrtghomheqnecukfhppedvgedrvdekrddutdekrddukeefnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmohguvgepshhmthhppdhhvghloheplhhotggrlhhhohhsthdpihhnvghtpedvgedrvdekrddutdekrddukeefpdhrvghtuhhrnhdqphgrthhhpefpihgtohcuhghilhhlihgrmhhsuceonhhitghosegtrhihphhtohhnvggtthhorhdrtghomheqpdhmrghilhhfrhhomhepnhhitghosegtrhihphhtohhnvggtthhorhdrtghomhdpnhhrtghpthhtohepnhhitghosegtrhihphhtohhnvggtthhorhdrtghomh
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/_AlZ84VGMmqcFQIJe4IUGuTe538>
Subject: Re: [TLS] WGLC for draft-ietf-tls-ticketrequests
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 04:35:55 -0000

On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 10:33:48PM -0600, Nico Williams wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 05:12:34PM -0800, Watson Ladd wrote:
> > > Now the first alternative would be infeasible to adopt because it would
> > > require new OpenSSL callback APIs, and anyways would be a more invasive
> > > change to TLS than the ticketrequest extension makes.
> > 
> > Nothing says you have to remember tickets, so unless I'm missing
> > something the semantics already are the second one.
> > 
> > Am I being silly?
> 
> That's the thing: the idea is to have one-time tickets, and keep
> replacing them as you use them.
> 
> If that's never the case, then indeed, no change is needed (except maybe
> to say that it's never the case).

Ay no, per-Viktor's follow-up, the client still needs some additional
information.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email