IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] RC4 cipher with NNTP (RFC 4642)

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Fri, 04 September 2015 11:57 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
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 905961B404D for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Sep 2015 04:57:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.011
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.011 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, 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 t84MkbYmK-JP for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Sep 2015 04:57:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 681531B430C for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Sep 2015 04:57:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3956BE39; Fri, 4 Sep 2015 12:57:09 +0100 (IST)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BOO8fKbZAu0a; Fri, 4 Sep 2015 12:57:09 +0100 (IST)
Received: from [134.226.36.180] (stephen-think.dsg.cs.tcd.ie [134.226.36.180]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9587FBDF9; Fri, 4 Sep 2015 12:57:09 +0100 (IST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1441367829; bh=gvK/8GjpiP1oWNceaYzAhN2pulmxuErTrASmuE14K58=; h=Subject:To:References:Cc:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=2sMLg0QTry4bD50CjBvAjmchX/OMc/uo40D5moFtMLMGRHmuGkPp5THZ16s562RAI MbOFwvXi7eXEHvDxVFbgynJICXI6KLVAUdltAyuq7rmGsIUpjlJNYzxmwPbjlJMHLG geE0X/LvjGaLq3uRiypGWLoHIx04BxML3EwA89co=
To: Sean Turner <sean@sn3rd.com>, Julien ÉLIE <julien@trigofacile.com>
References: <55E70A3F.9030902@trigofacile.com> <28250416ec74427d829d9e8598289eb1@usma1ex-dag1mb4.msg.corp.akamai.com> <55E713B2.5070407@trigofacile.com> <DAC3C031-3C52-4FDF-AEAE-3C1EB0623FEB@sn3rd.com> <55E8137D.60401@trigofacile.com> <1F9D5C29-1A5D-4535-A9F7-45CC8F09D311@sn3rd.com>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Openpgp: id=D66EA7906F0B897FB2E97D582F3C8736805F8DA2; url=
Message-ID: <55E98715.1070502@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2015 12:57:09 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1F9D5C29-1A5D-4535-A9F7-45CC8F09D311@sn3rd.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/jMh9qGOUL51qQypLh8KKEWe9-So>
Cc: "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [TLS] RC4 cipher with NNTP (RFC 4642)
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: <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, 04 Sep 2015 11:57:13 -0000

Hiya,

On 04/09/15 01:58, Sean Turner wrote:
> Also, I wouldn’t get too wrapped around the updates header because
> the meaning has changed over time.  At some points it has been used
> to point implementers at other related RFCs, but what I think the
> IESG has settled onto now (Stephen correct me if I’m wrong) is that
> the update header indicates that implementations of the updated RFC
> are expected to implement the update (note that expected is too
> strong of a word because implementing RFCs is purely voluntary -
> there’s no protocol police).

Right. Though even that may change as IESG personnel change;-)

Anyway, yes the UTA BCP (BCP195. [1]) is almost certainly what
you'd reference when you next write an NTP RFC that mentions TLS.

I would guess that folks in the NTP wg would be the ones who'd
know whether writing a short RFC to make just that change is
worthwhile or not. So probably the next step is to ask that
question on the NTP wg list.

Cheers,
S.

[1] https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp195

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email