IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] Followup on Update

Joseph Salowey <joe@salowey.net> Thu, 26 February 2015 16:53 UTC

Return-Path: <joe@salowey.net>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 05BAD1A8860 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 08:53:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.978
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.978 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 HM9tzveK78B3 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 08:53:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qg0-f46.google.com (mail-qg0-f46.google.com [209.85.192.46]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4294F1A8752 for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 08:53:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qg0-f46.google.com with SMTP id z107so9551108qgd.5 for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 08:53:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=SikHtVWbV4KWGUGcrjeQNNtPqf9Udkoc7B6WIrS6u78=; b=ZzYVoyie59rx9em5OeRZIVDPR9+Y6NcMOfwqappXvJYCuVzX6KZx+P9oetP8gy5DpD 8dOhYI+xWX6RIfZyCF5YPWI9Azq3jUwVV1PHctDgU+s2M8ksdy7JIR8RDDTFiUngzf5l wM5hv+aOh+y2oUEhwQ26q7ZnZPxxW5xfpsiZE4ql4w5Wzyu8rO3yIsGfigFn9h8SCls4 Toyrw1OdTbf0W8L8ToqJswM2ZCDTVGcz71MVP+UjivkK5B/uUp1HlNurkUjGvmhp5iuj nsgEEheO+sUA8F4KhxMZY3ib/gdVUpswxk8KAIBKygRh2I9a4bpX7dOIEJyPHc+GihrQ EN/w==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkwmpVy8tzH0WkyAi7dQAFdsNMr+0uHW0Lb6BM56XeIt82NCqyxcivX2ZBHLsPJZaAjVY6Q
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.140.132.197 with SMTP id 188mr20569540qhe.24.1424969633460; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 08:53:53 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.96.121.104 with HTTP; Thu, 26 Feb 2015 08:53:53 -0800 (PST)
X-Originating-IP: [207.47.24.10]
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBNLe+ffTPVi=i5xHCPL=eEKfM++RhjAf05S_sRwaAB72A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABcZeBNLe+ffTPVi=i5xHCPL=eEKfM++RhjAf05S_sRwaAB72A@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2015 08:53:53 -0800
Message-ID: <CAOgPGoANww+3Yuhz80vXRfB1qP9tzW=2ZguCeDcTKCBActhGDQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Joseph Salowey <joe@salowey.net>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c081fed1887905100098a1"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/cP0nkt7MNBU07mmNYPA9fMV1Qk8>
Cc: "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Followup on Update
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <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, 26 Feb 2015 16:53:56 -0000

On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 4:44 PM, Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:

> Folks,
>
> I'd like to get a sense of the WG on whether they want to pursue the Update
> mechanism [0].
>
> There are several possibilities here, including:
>
> - Just do basic Update
> - Move session ticket establishment to Update
> - Mode client authentication to Update
>
> My sense from the discussion in HNL was that people were generally
> positive on basic Update and unsure on the other two. If that's right,
> I'll buff up PR#94 for merge into the spec (pending chair approval).
>
>
[Joe] I think client authentication should be handled separately.  Unless
update invalidates a session ticket (which I do not think it should), I
think it would be better not to tie update and rekey to keep things simple.


It may make sense to tie a client auth and session ticket refresh together.



> Thanks,
> -Ekr
>
>
> [0] See https://github.com/tlswg/tls13-spec/pull/94 for a WIP
> version of the basic mechanism.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> TLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>
>

v2.14.0 | Report a Bug | By Email