IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] I-D Action:draft-ietf-tls-dtls-heartbeat-01.txt

Michael Tüxen <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de> Thu, 10 February 2011 15:57 UTC

Return-Path: <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de>
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 47C3A3A67B1 for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Feb 2011 07:57:24 -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=[BAYES_00=-2.599, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
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 FediEF4cCso3 for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Feb 2011 07:57:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-n.franken.de (drew.ipv6.franken.de [IPv6:2001:638:a02:a001:20e:cff:fe4a:feaa]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0BE33A6778 for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Feb 2011 07:57:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.113] (p508FA7CA.dip.t-dialin.net [80.143.167.202]) (Authenticated sender: macmic) by mail-n.franken.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id AFACC1C0C0BD8; Thu, 10 Feb 2011 16:57:34 +0100 (CET)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
From: Michael Tüxen <Michael.Tuexen@lurchi.franken.de>
In-Reply-To: <82wrl8rm7y.fsf@mid.bfk.de>
Date: Thu, 10 Feb 2011 16:57:33 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <5A95873D-F163-470F-BC92-057DC663B8CC@lurchi.franken.de>
References: <201102101356.p1ADuPOp010592@fs4113.wdf.sap.corp> <82wrl8rm7y.fsf@mid.bfk.de>
To: Florian Weimer <fweimer@bfk.de>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082)
Cc: tls@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [TLS] I-D Action:draft-ietf-tls-dtls-heartbeat-01.txt
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, 10 Feb 2011 15:57:24 -0000

On Feb 10, 2011, at 3:35 PM, Florian Weimer wrote:

> * Martin Rex:
> 
>> This single statement does not differentiate between compliant behaviour
>> for the sender and compliant behaviour for the receiver.
>> If it is necessary for the _receiver_ to handle duplicates gracefully
>> then this _must_ be spelled out seperately.
>> 
>> As it is, the wording of the spec implies that the receiver of duplicated
>> HeartbeatRequest messages needs to abort the connection with a
>> fatal error in order to comply with the specification.
> 
> Thanks.  This is my concern as well.
Ahh, I see what you mean. But the procedures for the receiver are
clearly specified.

Best regards
Michael
> 
> -- 
> Florian Weimer                <fweimer@bfk.de>
> BFK edv-consulting GmbH       http://www.bfk.de/
> Kriegsstraße 100              tel: +49-721-96201-1
> D-76133 Karlsruhe             fax: +49-721-96201-99
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email