IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] Request for clarification: "in the same flight"

Hubert Kario <hkario@redhat.com> Fri, 17 April 2015 12:35 UTC

Return-Path: <hkario@redhat.com>
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 9627B1B2BAA for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 05:35:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.912
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 fYCyE-pIMrzS for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 05:35:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.redhat.com (mx1.redhat.com [209.132.183.28]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8E0D41B2B9E for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 05:35:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EEF6F8E3EA; Fri, 17 Apr 2015 12:35:10 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pintsize.usersys.redhat.com (dhcp-0-127.brq.redhat.com [10.34.0.127]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t3HCZ8pc027536 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Fri, 17 Apr 2015 08:35:09 -0400
From: Hubert Kario <hkario@redhat.com>
To: tls@ietf.org
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 14:34:58 +0200
Message-ID: <57175023.AVSjdYu02a@pintsize.usersys.redhat.com>
User-Agent: KMail/4.14.4 (Linux/3.19.3-100.fc20.x86_64; KDE/4.14.6; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <CADGaDpHn5UoW3JQ58MYVyVZC7YXb3=fSUUz-i=kGi8YH-AHaSA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CADGaDpHn5UoW3JQ58MYVyVZC7YXb3=fSUUz-i=kGi8YH-AHaSA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart23825295.ulLHm7Grgd"; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.23
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/iXJBlAvD7hRejJ2iQumQIv9zt9E>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Request for clarification: "in the same flight"
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: <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: Fri, 17 Apr 2015 12:35:13 -0000

On Thursday 16 April 2015 18:07:27 Thijs van Dijk wrote:
> If I were to venture a guess, I'd say the two are equivalent, but it's also
> conceivable that some implementations require any TLSPlaintext to contain
> exactly one child struct. (Source: mine does; I'm trying to figure out if
> that's a bug or not.)

It is a bug, see RFC 5246, section 6.2.1, specifically:

   Client
   message boundaries are not preserved in the record layer (i.e.,
   multiple client messages of the same ContentType MAY be coalesced
   into a single TLSPlaintext record, or a single message MAY be
   fragmented across several records).
-- 
Regards,
Hubert Kario
Quality Engineer, QE BaseOS Security team
Web: www.cz.redhat.com
Red Hat Czech s.r.o., Purkyňova 99/71, 612 45, Brno, Czech Republic

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email