Re: [TLS] questions regarding draft-ietf-tls-rfc2246-bis-13.txt

jimmy <jimmyb@huawei.com> Thu, 12 January 2006 09:59 UTC

Received: from localhost.cnri.reston.va.us ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EwzEj-0003x8-IE; Thu, 12 Jan 2006 04:59:17 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1EwzEi-0003x2-I2 for tls@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 12 Jan 2006 04:59:16 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id EAA06336 for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Jan 2006 04:57:54 -0500 (EST)
Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com ([61.144.161.55] helo=huawei.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EwzLi-0006t1-PP for tls@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Jan 2006 05:06:36 -0500
Received: from huawei.com (szxga03-in [172.24.2.9]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.25 (built Mar 3 2004)) with ESMTP id <0ISZ009B15CQ7Y@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for tls@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Jan 2006 18:05:14 +0800 (CST)
Received: from szxml01-in ([172.24.1.3]) by szxga03-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.25 (built Mar 3 2004)) with ESMTP id <0ISZ00CQ05CP43@szxga03-in.huawei.com> for tls@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Jan 2006 18:05:14 +0800 (CST)
Received: from [10.18.18.211] by szxml01-in.huawei.com (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.25 (built Mar 3 2004)) with ESMTPSA id <0ISZ009FI5QOZ7@szxml01-in.huawei.com>; Thu, 12 Jan 2006 18:13:41 +0800 (CST)
Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 15:28:53 +0530
From: jimmy <jimmyb@huawei.com>
Subject: Re: [TLS] questions regarding draft-ietf-tls-rfc2246-bis-13.txt
In-reply-to: <43C5FF00.5040704@ssh.com>
To: Sami Lehtinen <sjl@ssh.com>
Message-id: <43C6285D.4040107@huawei.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.4.1 (Windows/20051006)
References: <43C5FF00.5040704@ssh.com>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: cab78e1e39c4b328567edb48482b6a69
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: tls@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: tls@lists.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.lists.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/tls>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@lists.ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: tls-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: tls-bounces@lists.ietf.org

Sami Lehtinen wrote:
> Hello,
...
> Also, there is conflicting text regarding message precedence (handshake 
> vs. application data):
> 
> In section 6.2.1. Fragmentation:
> 
>  Note: Data of different TLS Record layer content types MAY be
>        interleaved. Application data is generally of higher precedence
>                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>        for transmission than other content types and therefore handshake
>        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>        records may be held if application data is pending.  However,
>        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> and in 7.4.1.1. Hello request:
> 
>        with a no_renegotiation alert. Since handshake messages are
>                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>        intended to have transmission precedence over application data,
>        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>        it is expected that the negotiation will begin before no more
>        than a few records are received from the client. If the server
> 
> Which text is correct? In RFC 2246, the text is
> 
>  Note: Data of different TLS Record layer content types may be
>        interleaved. Application data is generally of lower precedence
>        for transmission than other content types.
> 
> and text to the same effect is also in section 7.4.1.1 of RFC2246.
> 

I too had pointed this out in an earlier mail, but got no replies. It 
seems in a previous thread in this list Eric had replied to someone 
posing a similar query. He had actually mentioned data had lower 
precedence (similar to what's in tls1.0 & the earlier tls1.1_drafts.

So, it's a bit confusing. tls1.1 is in the rfc editor queue, so is that 
why no clarifications are coming in (are these going to be addressed in 
tls 1.2?)


-jb

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