Re: [TLS] draft-ietf-tls-tls-13-17 posted

Ilari Liusvaara <ilariliusvaara@welho.com> Fri, 21 October 2016 15:06 UTC

Return-Path: <ilariliusvaara@welho.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 37EE2129411 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Oct 2016 08:06:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.331
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.331 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.431] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 dpHi-YCWPxde for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 21 Oct 2016 08:06:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from welho-filter4.welho.com (welho-filter4.welho.com [83.102.41.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD64F120726 for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Oct 2016 08:06:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by welho-filter4.welho.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D997D16DA1; Fri, 21 Oct 2016 18:06:17 +0300 (EEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at pp.htv.fi
Received: from welho-smtp2.welho.com ([IPv6:::ffff:83.102.41.85]) by localhost (welho-filter4.welho.com [::ffff:83.102.41.26]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WErBAp-YH5jX; Fri, 21 Oct 2016 18:06:17 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from LK-Perkele-V2 (87-100-237-87.bb.dnainternet.fi [87.100.237.87]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by welho-smtp2.welho.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8EAE727B; Fri, 21 Oct 2016 18:06:17 +0300 (EEST)
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2016 18:06:09 +0300
From: Ilari Liusvaara <ilariliusvaara@welho.com>
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Message-ID: <20161021150609.GA8844@LK-Perkele-V2.elisa-laajakaista.fi>
References: <CABcZeBP6pzqtcT3rmmpjr_4R+fb6ZyiAduxQiJ87B9hnRzVBXA@mail.gmail.com> <20161021093350.GA8070@LK-Perkele-V2.elisa-laajakaista.fi> <CABcZeBPd25PQhFDW+pbGCCRQM8CVWdnK3NDizYEdgcsV7gR8fg@mail.gmail.com> <20161021140057.GA8197@LK-Perkele-V2.elisa-laajakaista.fi> <CABcZeBN=qTB1g_jfT_HZ=WnkqbKpRnDa=CahvHZeDb9w5ZbXbw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBN=qTB1g_jfT_HZ=WnkqbKpRnDa=CahvHZeDb9w5ZbXbw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: ilariliusvaara@welho.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/ihmmNPNfCAw3ck4kzs9O10ToxqU>
Cc: "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [TLS] draft-ietf-tls-tls-13-17 posted
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 21 Oct 2016 15:06:20 -0000

On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 08:00:33AM -0700, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 7:00 AM, Ilari Liusvaara <ilariliusvaara@welho.com>;
> wrote:
> 
> > On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 04:39:59AM -0700, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 21, 2016 at 2:33 AM, Ilari Liusvaara <
> > ilariliusvaara@welho.com>;
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > And since that implementation supports RFC7250 (for the server
> > > > certificate), here is my interpretation of it:
> > > >
> > > > The certificate type is sent in extensions of EE certificate,
> > > > via the usual server_certificate_type extension (using the server-side
> > > > syntax from RFC7250).
> > > >
> > >
> > > I think this probably should go in Encrypted Extensions.
> >
> > It is definitely related to the certificate chain,
> 
> 
> My argument would be that it doesn't belong in "individual certificates"
> because it applies to certificates as a whole. It's not like it would be
> legal to have a 7250 cert followed by an X.509 cert, one hopes

Well, there can't be two server certificate "chains". But if there
could, I would expect the type to per-chain.



-Ilari