Re: [TLS] Sending fatal alerts over TCP

Marsh Ray <marsh@extendedsubset.com> Wed, 21 December 2011 20:04 UTC

Return-Path: <marsh@extendedsubset.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 E91951F0C5E for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 12:04:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.299
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.299 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.300, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_33=0.6]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XXQlrP7wiJC7 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 12:04:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org (mho-03-ewr.mailhop.org [204.13.248.66]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F4701F0C5C for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 12:04:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from xs01.extendedsubset.com ([69.164.193.58]) by mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from <marsh@extendedsubset.com>) id 1RdSOR-00069G-2w; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 20:04:03 +0000
Received: from [192.168.1.15] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xs01.extendedsubset.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A78B63C5; Wed, 21 Dec 2011 20:04:01 +0000 (UTC)
X-Mail-Handler: MailHop Outbound by DynDNS
X-Originating-IP: 69.164.193.58
X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see http://www.dyndns.com/services/mailhop/outbound_abuse.html for abuse reporting information)
X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX18qEZBOl/GZJ/aXFEG8XoQtM1TnQd+gxxo=
Message-ID: <4EF23BB2.600@extendedsubset.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 14:04:02 -0600
From: Marsh Ray <marsh@extendedsubset.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9.2.23) Gecko/20110921 Thunderbird/3.1.15
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: mrex@sap.com
References: <201112211939.pBLJdovn015672@fs4113.wdf.sap.corp>
In-Reply-To: <201112211939.pBLJdovn015672@fs4113.wdf.sap.corp>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: tls@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [TLS] Sending fatal alerts over TCP
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 20:04:04 -0000

On 12/21/2011 01:39 PM, Martin Rex wrote:
>
> In case that you're referring to  page 70,
> this text appears in a section
>
>    "second check the RST bit,"
>
> and can only be ever reached when it was
> not fully processed by the previous "first check sequence number"
> a page before, which says:
> *>       If an incoming segment is not acceptable, an acknowledgment
> *>       should be sent in reply (unless the RST bit is set, if so [...]

But let's say the RST segment passes the sequence number check.

It seems that this language applies:
> Initial tests on arrival  are used to discard old duplicates,
>   but further processing is  done in SEG.SEQ order.
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

So maybe I am starting to agree with you (but for a different reason :-)

- Marsh