Re: [TLS] new error alerts?

Aaron Zauner <azet@azet.org> Thu, 23 July 2015 19:31 UTC

Return-Path: <azet@azet.org>
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 1E4751A1EFF for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 12:31:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.6
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 dmYI8V5RMNcK for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 12:31:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-f180.google.com (mail-wi0-f180.google.com [209.85.212.180]) (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 C490D1A1B62 for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 12:31:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wibud3 with SMTP id ud3so7899986wib.0 for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 12:31:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type; bh=Toy9W+u2ZZCtrOzF4dLEkZz72AiG8vuoLYXYjdgDjZQ=; b=RdGPvwCpoyMfUz6rB1wXqjWNU9+3ElmH9YZHHxuSZfuuBr914sAykxUhNlv12IO9nE BT646Fyh7wrxtFhNeSUEjGX+3N4kS9YMV/mRFGs4zBC3NlRWNrjUsqSfQdKKeu/ArkIk cSKuNc2KIBMAiCrgx8BOgvJSKd9lf+9oCX5eRH/T+h+XXm6ycDu+3sBaT5fUkkrnH6ji J2FOxKqm3uBn7bqg0llAuCvpwZg5WOe2DIK1fITCdcdqk/6eRdt6OXBXZyRZbqLJiA7R fVDaIkJQROMkjZBW8sd8Hee7bTvgQZSNjy9yLpHwRqd21tgAKV0tDXmbv0tosygZi587 I7ig==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmiTUhW87UaIJT4vT+bW1hMBMws0X02tBKuG4/RPp55bjRjmA8ue2Gt6EZmgFFcMNTY3GSp
X-Received: by 10.180.103.69 with SMTP id fu5mr26098274wib.95.1437679871287; Thu, 23 Jul 2015 12:31:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [200.200.100.37] ([80.250.10.250]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i6sm8368785wjf.29.2015.07.23.12.31.09 (version=TLS1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 23 Jul 2015 12:31:10 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <55B140FA.4060705@azet.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2015 21:31:06 +0200
From: Aaron Zauner <azet@azet.org>
User-Agent: Postbox 3.0.11 (Macintosh/20140602)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Dave Garrett <davemgarrett@gmail.com>
References: <201507222139.46391.davemgarrett@gmail.com> <55B0C6A2.40304@azet.org> <201507231426.20542.davemgarrett@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <201507231426.20542.davemgarrett@gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.2.3
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig3F8CE70D57AD0837330BCEC4"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/g8Su53L0L0_iKPnfXoBB7BBfa-U>
Cc: "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [TLS] new error alerts?
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: <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, 23 Jul 2015 19:31:14 -0000


Dave Garrett wrote:
> On Thursday, July 23, 2015 06:49:06 am Aaron Zauner wrote:
>> I mean I kinda agree that 'insufficent security' is a misleading name,
>> but as it has been used for decades in TLS I'm a bit hesitant if it's a
>> good idea to change the name now.
> 
> Alternate bikesheddy response: what about renaming it to "insufficient_cipher_security" and adding a new "insufficient_dh_security"?
> 
> That keeps the legacy naming, but modifies it to include actual specific meaning, rather than a total replacement.
> 

Fine with that. Now that I think about it again; I'm also fine with the
original proposal. The thing is 'insufficient security' has a nicer ring
to it than 'unsupported XYZ'.

Aaron