Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-ticketrequests-02.txt

"Martin Thomson" <> Fri, 11 October 2019 08:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0396C120020 for <>; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 01:55:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.701
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.701 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=NOvb+Kmz; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=G6MdHIYr
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id m_ubxEaH7x92 for <>; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 01:55:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B8A44120044 for <>; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 01:55:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal []) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2B3C03A4 for <>; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 04:55:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from imap2 ([]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Fri, 11 Oct 2019 04:55:30 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; h=mime-version:message-id:in-reply-to:references:date:from:to :subject:content-type; s=fm3; bh=mpawr0eF/pVTGfBuCzn2GhRvMuUCyaM 0VVu7YAa14ZU=; b=NOvb+KmzEXHoG6PypqZMTYPfy9wwgMho9pOSUVlKZYTk/OI On2G7wGqrmVwYX1wPNneQW1u7kmQXIXHM0z7jPnMQMZvEqdjZMcDvG3+wR446uAP KgupKrDj5E86X5HOp7Opvo0nZ9VHPjeRvCFNHoxOIjpkfMvhUIpJ1Fi/ZkE5cLKI c9p8x0txujSangEVYfPvvUJV9w4ep5mEkpE5XqDGiU+oZgNXPwp37gkffFKVyOfX yqALtAY2Qmga/zYPPeCZg5LZeD7SWQbKFL7hay1xvXZ06mI6lTp6puaI1nkeMtBg SkwGrkiindv40MdYEVoYR1Mp7jMU0BlAsYsXGDg==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=; h=content-type:date:from:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:subject:to:x-me-proxy :x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=mpawr0 eF/pVTGfBuCzn2GhRvMuUCyaM0VVu7YAa14ZU=; b=G6MdHIYroq3iIJzhoxDGt2 Z4A+Aosvo3mSbj+kKv2b8Qvm1s84UEH76qs42pwWXpL2cU8tcu0O8UU3ml9bqrI8 i32QAeDINGZbyxU75OhD2Z/752VtjJnNoBGczzc1BRW8J/7Uxvm5iraJl1Ftzwmi 3A08APmtNsnAqYOH88LaU5/8/EHRrx1SfbByOe9N6y5LukRudIEaB6j5XO6aI3th XI5Gp2FHOeYGw5GWzIKfN0eRF9TJf9ICgmcNdmyfVeABPmIdwcSlr5rYJT7shmY8 gJWp9raW0Ond+MiR4T8/JHC23fmZ2iI7zNCxYgbJ02XiUMu7P7l/yR1UoJ6Bpucw ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:gUOgXaUBikYn1viC0gBFcBVmqiQFFNLx0A2Es7NkiI0ml39f_sp25Q>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedufedrieehgddutdcutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecunecujfgurhepofgfggfkjghffffhvffutgesthdtre dtreertdenucfhrhhomhepfdforghrthhinhcuvfhhohhmshhonhdfuceomhhtsehlohif vghnthhrohhphidrnhgvtheqnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehmtheslhhofi gvnhhtrhhophihrdhnvghtnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptd
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:gUOgXRMh2SEwb-T5aF6ahu6H8AlKezLqOBtoq2K0KOKftv6o03SqEw> <xmx:gUOgXUbdT4ZoWqG0XqmvPOj3LTVtsvJ1wcL8TsPpZcNf6wuRUwXhdg> <xmx:gUOgXQ8XXWqa9r-Wm_sCrzlljcVKBWtKCvXKis2RcEjqQIly4N7qCQ> <xmx:gUOgXWJ5bbUmiOx2WOIlcYpcTGC39ivZ1uj5a5KF_QFjnLKuz0ePVg>
Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id 35FE2E00A5; Fri, 11 Oct 2019 04:55:29 -0400 (EDT)
X-Mailer: Webmail Interface
User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.1.7-360-g7dda896-fmstable-20191004v2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <>
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2019 19:55:10 +1100
From: "Martin Thomson" <>
Content-Type: text/plain
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-ticketrequests-02.txt
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." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2019 08:55:32 -0000

On Fri, Oct 11, 2019, at 14:07, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>   * The client has a what it believes to be a valid ticket
>     and is willing to re-use it, and would prefer to avoid
>     the cost of replacing it on each resumption.
>   * The server is happy to allow re-use of still valid
>     tickets by clients, but needs to know whether the
>     client wants a new ticket (because it never re-uses).
>   * The server would like to vend a new ticket only when the
>     old one needs to be refreshed (ticket lifetime or STEK
>     rotation).
> In the context of the draft as-is, such a client and server
> have a time arriving at a mutually compatible configuration.

Yeah, I agree that this is a little thorny.  However, the client asking for one extra and the server vending one more is a relatively small extra expense AND we discourage reuse in the general case.  So, at least from my perspective, this isn't that serious a problem and shouldn't block publication.

I'm not especially happy with the idea of having 1 mean "maybe 1".  Having 1 mean 1 is far less dangerous.  I think that I would prefer to go for an application- or configuration-level signal for this, if it is an important use case to consider.  It's not like it is impossible to have an client say "I really need a ticket" at the application layer, and the server to receive that and call `tls.send_ticket()` (that's a function that NSS provides, for instance).