Re: [TLS] [tls13-spec] relax certificate_list ordering requirements to match current practice (#169)

Ben Laurie <> Tue, 12 May 2015 12:37 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 629731B2C14 for <>; Tue, 12 May 2015 05:37:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.389
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.389 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6pqOMEYCYnKm for <>; Tue, 12 May 2015 05:37:17 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48E681B2C13 for <>; Tue, 12 May 2015 05:37:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qcbgy10 with SMTP id gy10so2969424qcb.3 for <>; Tue, 12 May 2015 05:37:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=ciiNf3nf+w0cywgUOz3EA080SuWUzo0pHRproVHBYms=; b=g+yXtDnSTyEzbj3JKmQVSiPOTxH9o9z2+N5aA3Ks3KYIcpzV7RXfJTVTpHHAco1e0J XtnNGZWenc7I1waYWKE2XFRL5/AHZTdil0HjZuDWekHSZvhUNkF09ZUQW3XZAK7QdGdt a4V6JyFOEz5ZrTvErQxot85SIBjQD62zE913sOQZJy9iQAkQtsbpKeUhgWhmj8qS43m8 M7p0FTVywEVadIrsx1QTnRZBHYtfjBljARymHSgtePa32EyS4O5sIWQzy4H7wc+nSsbn MLfa6kjgrRzYEbyYW+MWuYIXlQ66SgmA7hggx/6W+AiXrdpbVtlNVAaqVuG0v97oUs8B SxUQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=ciiNf3nf+w0cywgUOz3EA080SuWUzo0pHRproVHBYms=; b=HTAcPSZ5D5GExKTlnlF4803UYVvHZi9K+KNGwaLOy480L+7Zv8uQ5xZP/LWRvyUOE0 TYHxlzYCIrse1BGkVQ7O1H7g51dP9tezZZlkJf4UxNmEsWd2kkUvmAfrrdWPmp1zmlv7 9PPx6drdleH6BnFuKvvqidWXMueUTbVHe+Ngm6txZH01y69AytZSIY8FkGDFHO/ZzAzv 1CNKi/MeSPXcWWAAnD5s57eO1EkKlx2B6U3SSsU31rypDV2QdwofJD39Kdmyx26tAj0z HnG6JvbBq02dJj/5s2f9uY9zSQQ6Z8VFlu8WqFDl79lTLH0UrL020Z2WvAefeWHG3i/g Px5w==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkvfmF5e/EjdMix9zjNhjIDcDtndce6J8XaFJ9d9GSKIZpOEIukRQsHDdtxWo4jq468GROc
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by with SMTP id 23mr19624210qhv.48.1431434234504; Tue, 12 May 2015 05:37:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with HTTP; Tue, 12 May 2015 05:37:14 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <tlswg/tls13-spec/pull/> <tlswg/tls13-spec/pull/169/> <> <>
Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 13:37:14 +0100
Message-ID: <>
From: Ben Laurie <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <>
Cc: " (" <>
Subject: Re: [TLS] [tls13-spec] relax certificate_list ordering requirements to match current practice (#169)
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." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 12 May 2015 12:37:18 -0000

On 11 May 2015 at 19:41, Ryan Sleevi <> wrote:
> So to be clear, I disagree with my colleague, Ben Laurie, rather
> substantially here.

To be fair, I mostly, or maybe even completely, agree with you on
further thought. I just wish that path validation were less

I still have a concern around servers that are missing certificates
that are needed to complete validation at all, which the proposed
language change would permit.

I agree that the supplied certs have to cover multiple possible
validation paths, and hence cannot follow a strict "each cert
validates the next" ordering.

It would be nice, however, to put an end to the current chaos.