IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-tls-sslv3-diediedie-00

Joseph Salowey <joe@salowey.net> Mon, 02 March 2015 20:55 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 059C71A8780 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 12:55:46 -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 GUFNLfR5m_0p for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 12:55:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qc0-f172.google.com (mail-qc0-f172.google.com [209.85.216.172]) (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 AF9CE1A8993 for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 12:55:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: by qcvp6 with SMTP id p6so26940556qcv.12 for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 02 Mar 2015 12:55:40 -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=FpG0RTI0i4YQcEWw3vb2rnUSwG/G74hGMmvqJo2CvfI=; b=YxttyO99bpiCmiUvd9HMtfPEXFufKCUm84YNknSn2RNENbqWMW3aH0+6zlNaiP8GlC q++e5i6UAWBLAR6H19N0S4LA/LXZ7Xi/+uUuvy5iMH8lBd4AZpiKUJMBFitDnWjon07g cH25DhWEM+sfL7sXYxr2cyfWevBA5HJvAp4aWw8bpdgGk0EVkrg4i4MB7BBYME3hxtui BTTArFZtkGYPmxuoBzwHRq10AliHIBhz/2Er3d2eTkODPnKVeBR29AYZmoU0dFcKpEcv YRGbiQt+Y176KOOVT15ZETUi1o7J41B7GlChSz1seExRBKCOadnKrJFgAA8teBhohT4d pCfQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnGQAls1UXJ4iTLbm8XjsQlRrd3/M3VA4ZQ09b8BP3dK8J6m6SeqmnFEkjhtlVFmX0QYt7C
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.140.236.73 with SMTP id h70mr53477208qhc.41.1425329739898; Mon, 02 Mar 2015 12:55:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.96.121.104 with HTTP; Mon, 2 Mar 2015 12:55:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Originating-IP: [50.206.82.175]
In-Reply-To: <CABkgnnWnfMok5dKypP3kSn_fDLQ1Gc1vhmFNhSWB3zEwq=4Fcg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAOgPGoD806Mf=wa76ixU15nGDCK91tgG4r3Sb0Us2meX4Rqk5A@mail.gmail.com> <CAOgPGoB2q8Wu6dsydCccP-Rpskv2a34Y7F5C_J_cqjgaArrL3Q@mail.gmail.com> <CAKC-DJgKMdjFm0C2VzTFGipW-sdMWxycXJ=6kY0KLJsG88ntvQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABkgnnWnfMok5dKypP3kSn_fDLQ1Gc1vhmFNhSWB3zEwq=4Fcg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 12:55:39 -0800
Message-ID: <CAOgPGoBRD5B5U4+ZQdBxtjKwG25cnxrkgKA8QjunP832iWrJww@mail.gmail.com>
From: Joseph Salowey <joe@salowey.net>
To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11359476d5b9c605105470e7"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/eV0JPYPAFGSlvRAA5sKfFyxzdno>
Cc: "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-tls-sslv3-diediedie-00
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: Mon, 02 Mar 2015 20:55:46 -0000

I am going to continue to move forward with the publication request.  I
think we will have opportunity to add this later in the process.

On Mon, Mar 2, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On 2 March 2015 at 09:44, Erik Nygren <erik+ietf@nygren.org> wrote:
> > I'm not sure if it's critical enough to hold up last-call?  It is another
> > major down-side of the lack of extension support in SSLv3 from a
> > deploy-ability perspective.
>
> Each of us feels a different pain, don't we?
>
> We could continue to list the many ways, but I think that we have
> enough justification without the addition.  If a chance comes up, I
> think that I will add "Server Name Indication [RFC6066]" to the list
> of missing features though.
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email