IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] consensus call: draft-ietf-tls-ticketrequests

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Wed, 04 March 2020 20:43 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 D28BD3A0836 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 12:43:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=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 EoTraOrrDVBX for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 12:43:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from azure.elm.relay.mailchannels.net (azure.elm.relay.mailchannels.net [23.83.212.7]) (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 8DCF23A0834 for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 12:43:47 -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 539F954055B; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 20:43:46 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a89.g.dreamhost.com (100-96-54-11.trex.outbound.svc.cluster.local [100.96.54.11]) (Authenticated sender: dreamhost) by relay.mailchannels.net (Postfix) with ESMTPA id A92A3540A4F; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 20:43:45 +0000 (UTC)
X-Sender-Id: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a89.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); Wed, 04 Mar 2020 20:43:46 +0000
X-MC-Relay: Neutral
X-MailChannels-SenderId: dreamhost|x-authsender|nico@cryptonector.com
X-MailChannels-Auth-Id: dreamhost
X-Celery-Fearful: 21f41bc7407f48a6_1583354626124_2064223109
X-MC-Loop-Signature: 1583354626124:388752377
X-MC-Ingress-Time: 1583354626123
Received: from pdx1-sub0-mail-a89.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pdx1-sub0-mail-a89.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 471F57F38F; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 12:43:40 -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=F8DAe/Lf4l0zf5 YZCuu8VZ2rs2s=; b=nC7GzoLx2swZ6gW7pEQEkPlBNIp820KP1R9RG2XfYk44mT AaMAazxmSy4/LEwuxZUIhnZED9QtPIb5YpK74EunnpdzL6MgSIYzg9SUWeVGxycZ kbVZG8lr9Aofczwkh1WoW88n7kEI5fLlvMSWpg5Zu+a8E4+6T+cwdkPZLERzY=
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-a89.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 383C37F0CE; Wed, 4 Mar 2020 12:43:37 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 04 Mar 2020 14:43:35 -0600
X-DH-BACKEND: pdx1-sub0-mail-a89
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com>
Cc: "Salz, Rich" <rsalz=40akamai.com@dmarc.ietf.org>, TLS List <tls@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20200304204334.GP18021@localhost>
References: <4E07012F-AB53-4727-A309-D8A15222A433@sn3rd.com> <0E7E2E43-CC46-488E-981E-BF8417821D85@sn3rd.com> <D661BFB4-6B07-4519-BEFD-754F9460768C@akamai.com> <20200304201520.GO18021@localhost> <E540459B-9287-41EB-8F23-2E9C3E6ECE71@sn3rd.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <E540459B-9287-41EB-8F23-2E9C3E6ECE71@sn3rd.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
X-VR-OUT-STATUS: OK
X-VR-OUT-SCORE: -100
X-VR-OUT-SPAMCAUSE: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedugedruddtkedgudegtdcutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucggtfgfnhhsuhgsshgtrhhisggvpdfftffgtefojffquffvnecuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenucfjughrpeffhffvuffkfhggtggujggfsehttdertddtredvnecuhfhrohhmpefpihgtohcuhghilhhlihgrmhhsuceonhhitghosegtrhihphhtohhnvggtthhorhdrtghomheqnecukfhppedvgedrvdekrddutdekrddukeefnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmohguvgepshhmthhppdhhvghloheplhhotggrlhhhohhsthdpihhnvghtpedvgedrvdekrddutdekrddukeefpdhrvghtuhhrnhdqphgrthhhpefpihgtohcuhghilhhlihgrmhhsuceonhhitghosegtrhihphhtohhnvggtthhorhdrtghomheqpdhmrghilhhfrhhomhepnhhitghosegtrhihphhtohhnvggtthhorhdrtghomhdpnhhrtghpthhtohepnhhitghosegtrhihphhtohhnvggtthhorhdrtghomh
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/bElLKKhu4BggZXFMzoSx6w_Do3U>
Subject: Re: [TLS] consensus call: 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: Wed, 04 Mar 2020 20:43:49 -0000

On Wed, Mar 04, 2020 at 03:22:33PM -0500, Sean Turner wrote:
> > On Mar 4, 2020, at 15:15, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 04, 2020 at 05:09:35PM +0000, Salz, Rich wrote:
> >>>    Must the ticket reuse use case be addresses
> >>     in draft-ietf-tls-ticketrequests?
> > 
> > I'm missing this post in my inbox, so I shall reply to Rich Salz's
> > reply.  Thanks for having this LC.
> 
> I forwarded it directly to you.

Ah, it had landed in my spam folder.  Thanks.

> > Can we also ask why or why not?  Of course, some of us have already
> > explained our positions, but I am interested in the rationales for any
> > new yes/no/don't-cares.
> 
> If people have something new reason to add sure, but I would rather
> not rehash all the previous emails.

Certainly anyone voicing new opinions should provide a rationale.

That's part of how we find consensus.  We're not counting votes.

Nico
--

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email