Re: [TLS] Pre_shared_key Extension Question

Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> Thu, 18 August 2016 15:30 UTC

Return-Path: <ekr@rtfm.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 DD55612D94D for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Aug 2016 08:30:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 pwsIphY4tHhA for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Aug 2016 08:30:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-yb0-x22a.google.com (mail-yb0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c09::22a]) (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 4619012D879 for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Aug 2016 08:30:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-yb0-x22a.google.com with SMTP id d10so6560489ybi.1 for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Aug 2016 08:30:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=rtfm-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=XTTQjJSYvPKg2sBI+pCfuXJjYGT50Xpyvyx4Qcn6T8g=; b=RNAUkWOPYIhx2RDFDaicIm/G3ha3DViMYBTMRVfb/o40KAg9iWbJYd3u+LDS9RL5F4 734wALCwTL/ueZpIqNoeEk9W7qcEAQoQ5d8LHfZp+09SCPtlGg7VgXEk7DBgLjouybrw zKQvXu7eObXZja0xk7uKgNfg1OlqjyQ0h2WQSdYjW225PX8WjaenF6gHFj55GRpciBka KFQb5Y5L/K/kRroxR869w64NL2du/Bu6xVKRDM8lry509jNIJTF0DjDjL15yInJej61g pEkRpHxD8MbaYyv2mCZNt9gbk3bcpiJAG11mG02AY6ZZt54KWPQwh+Ycg80qVXQB6kku EqNg==
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:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=XTTQjJSYvPKg2sBI+pCfuXJjYGT50Xpyvyx4Qcn6T8g=; b=ArS3OUlUKRcLYiGzxk67PsI6ErXO/ksxmjvhBe5AZ7i/cJKa/+DnRlZ596uxyvCRbk mi9HZDCJmNqu3L5c2getqWpIW786w/sZgPaRaBXUzalLB7WHFuQ5S69HfMqoVZebODu7 CAVqAR7Sn6Kd2I/I+00zrHFCyDSQ/9XAaoh0gWYJ5DQHyvlv+yxlZUMQS9b9QY/EG0Yu +pcrnuEOca+K3xrbAOO7PKQyJeGFEUm1h4N8pK86IsbJl7//bEovXUnHPplcFPMky7Pd K3h5OR0amv0EvGRuoy3bPvL+yJi3Qk4wWKf20CRUqjWV9KdpCq/v2k5xIGxqwwYOoYYL zx/g==
X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoousLC3nTQvNGtsusGQwQnwlyacJuGWats4knq6Gb3CZGJsDlWf2EbqnEi790oUZK8mTI08FFw4wt0T1U9g==
X-Received: by 10.37.211.9 with SMTP id e9mr2136771ybf.74.1471534211500; Thu, 18 Aug 2016 08:30:11 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.129.48.193 with HTTP; Thu, 18 Aug 2016 08:29:31 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <4458b764-8814-a3b6-0765-1692d19e278f@akamai.com>
References: <fa85eafb-b2f5-b5c2-859a-a2e24d734324@gmx.net> <CABcZeBOBffGU6RWgfMkRhqzxLd-yUw0v_CoUvtdDyTR0Ubvm6A@mail.gmail.com> <4458b764-8814-a3b6-0765-1692d19e278f@akamai.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 08:29:31 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBMM_OKPifQ=G+wEnUzJXfV=oJwoAa8zjLVTkHx94A798A@mail.gmail.com>
To: Benjamin Kaduk <bkaduk@akamai.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c147dccf3dc8d053a5a4110
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/fyUWKhZ8JHCQ48KBbJ_MssE3P_o>
Cc: "<tls@ietf.org>" <tls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Pre_shared_key Extension Question
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Thu, 18 Aug 2016 15:30:14 -0000

On Thu, Aug 18, 2016 at 8:18 AM, Benjamin Kaduk <bkaduk@akamai.com> wrote:

> On 08/17/2016 05:17 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
> It would be a fairly significant simplification to say you could only have
> one PSK, because then we could easily require the client to prove knowledge
> of the key, for instance by stuffing a MAC at the end of the ClientHello as
> we discussed in Berlin.
>
> So:
> Is there any demand for multiple identities? I do not believe there is any
> in the Web context. If not, we should remove this feature.
>
>
> Then at PSK rollover time, clients are expected to fall back to a new TLS
> connection using the other PSK?
>

I'm not sure I follow. Can you say more?

-Ekr




> -Ben
>