Re: [TLS] Naming that TLS session/connection instance thing

Marsh Ray <marsh@extendedsubset.com> Thu, 24 December 2009 23:32 UTC

Return-Path: <marsh@extendedsubset.com>
X-Original-To: tls@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BB0C3A6811 for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Dec 2009 15:32:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.592
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.592 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.007, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F4Qwp4H2FghN for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 24 Dec 2009 15:32:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org (mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org [204.13.248.71]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FEEB3A659B for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Dec 2009 15:32:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from xs01.extendedsubset.com ([69.164.193.58]) by mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from <marsh@extendedsubset.com>) id 1NNxAC-0007HN-Jh; Thu, 24 Dec 2009 23:32:12 +0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xs01.extendedsubset.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86BE7603A; Thu, 24 Dec 2009 23:32:11 +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: U2FsdGVkX1/TZIFPhokdyBzWcE9NxvfOrudFQD0uV6c=
Message-ID: <4B33F9F9.7040403@extendedsubset.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 17:32:09 -0600
From: Marsh Ray <marsh@extendedsubset.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Nelson B Bolyard <nelson@bolyard.me>
References: <4B33F445.4010203@bolyard.me>
In-Reply-To: <4B33F445.4010203@bolyard.me>
X-Enigmail-Version: 0.96.0
OpenPGP: id=1E36DBF2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: IETF TLS Working Group <tls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Naming that TLS session/connection instance thing
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
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/listinfo/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: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 23:32:31 -0000

Merry Chrismas, all.

Nelson B Bolyard wrote:
> 
> It's also the thing to which a "TLS channel binding" binds, is it not?
> 
> Believing that it is, I propose that we name it a "TLS channel".

/me winces

> Does that proposal cause anyone here any great pain?

To me, the term 'channel' seems to be heavily overloaded and it comes
with a nonzero amount of baggage from the channel binding work.

It doesn't "speak to me" as a precise thing the way (for example)
"connection state" does. It sounds like a term which people will place
their own meaning on and feel like they understand it, and other people
will do the same with slightly different meanings.

That said, I don't really have a better suggestion right now.

- Marsh