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

Marsh Ray <> Thu, 24 December 2009 23:32 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BB0C3A6811 for <>; Thu, 24 Dec 2009 15:32:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.592
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.592 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.007, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id F4Qwp4H2FghN for <>; Thu, 24 Dec 2009 15:32:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FEEB3A659B for <>; Thu, 24 Dec 2009 15:32:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) by with esmtpa (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from <>) id 1NNxAC-0007HN-Jh; Thu, 24 Dec 2009 23:32:12 +0000
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 86BE7603A; Thu, 24 Dec 2009 23:32:11 +0000 (UTC)
X-Mail-Handler: MailHop Outbound by DynDNS
X-Report-Abuse-To: (see for abuse reporting information)
X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX1/TZIFPhokdyBzWcE9NxvfOrudFQD0uV6c=
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 24 Dec 2009 17:32:09 -0600
From: Marsh Ray <>
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Nelson B Bolyard <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
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 <>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Naming that TLS session/connection instance thing
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." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-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