Re: [TLS] TLS renegotiation issue

Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams@sun.com> Thu, 05 November 2009 22:17 UTC

Return-Path: <Nicolas.Williams@sun.com>
X-Original-To: tls@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 83C753A68E9 for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Nov 2009 14:17:54 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.013
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.013 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.033, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 1dw4vpoFZAN0 for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 5 Nov 2009 14:17:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from brmea-mail-4.sun.com (brmea-mail-4.Sun.COM [192.18.98.36]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B75353A6836 for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Nov 2009 14:17:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dm-central-02.central.sun.com ([129.147.62.5]) by brmea-mail-4.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id nA5MIG61008548 for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Nov 2009 22:18:16 GMT
Received: from binky.Central.Sun.COM (binky.Central.Sun.COM [129.153.128.104]) by dm-central-02.central.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL, v2.2) with ESMTP id nA5MIF6P020339 for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 5 Nov 2009 15:18:16 -0700 (MST)
Received: from binky.Central.Sun.COM (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by binky.Central.Sun.COM (8.14.3+Sun/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nA5M6fal009601; Thu, 5 Nov 2009 16:06:41 -0600 (CST)
Received: (from nw141292@localhost) by binky.Central.Sun.COM (8.14.3+Sun/8.14.3/Submit) id nA5M6fUl009600; Thu, 5 Nov 2009 16:06:41 -0600 (CST)
X-Authentication-Warning: binky.Central.Sun.COM: nw141292 set sender to Nicolas.Williams@sun.com using -f
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 2009 16:06:41 -0600
From: Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams@sun.com>
To: Martin Rex <mrex@sap.com>
Message-ID: <20091105220641.GM1105@Sun.COM>
References: <20091105203817.GK1105@Sun.COM> <200911052156.nA5LujHw015785@fs4113.wdf.sap.corp>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200911052156.nA5LujHw015785@fs4113.wdf.sap.corp>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.7i
Cc: ekr@rtfm.com, tls@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [TLS] TLS renegotiation issue
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
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/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 05 Nov 2009 22:17:54 -0000

On Thu, Nov 05, 2009 at 10:56:45PM +0100, Martin Rex wrote:
> Nicolas Williams wrote:
> > Wrong.  The GSS-API is NOT the only exception.  There's also SCTP, and
> > probably a number of otheres (heck, even IDNA has an abstract API).
> 
> Well, OK.
> 
> While I was actively participating IETF meeting (1995-1998) it was
> pointed out several times in IETF plenaries by IESG members that
> the IETF does not do APIs and GSS-API was an exception.
> 
> I seem to have missed that this has changed.

I don't think it was ever really true that "the IETF doesn't do APIs".
There have been many people who've said that, but I don't think it was
ever the case that the IETF explicitly said it wouldn't (i.e., there are
no RFCs, historic or otherwise, saying that).  It was always just a
canard.

Nico
--