Re: [TLS] RESOLVED (Re: [sasl] lasgt call comments (st Call: draft-altman-tls-channel-bindings (Channel Bindings for TLS) to Proposed Standard))

Michael D'Errico <> Wed, 04 November 2009 18:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6043928C106; Wed, 4 Nov 2009 10:23:43 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.581
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.581 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.018, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id To94f-FM7qfE; Wed, 4 Nov 2009 10:23:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7468928C0FF; Wed, 4 Nov 2009 10:23:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 60EB9734F0; Wed, 4 Nov 2009 13:24:02 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed;; h=message-id :date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=QZXsTlABM3zx u1/bNkv3znArCIo=; b=fX9GUPbAqn4NLJDeryIWGzDCKqLefxxDBdptipEJUknO NVyVwJ7fiCXwpMYXoxeZFytuKgKDaUnqeyrQW4hmVJ3Ag5YobQNkguVg0k6aFKCC lLExs5CXlo8jXfIpDz5GPLQxPyrTaSvnph5GgYkKhFlo6Q4hJWRHYABVfeiXPBw=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;; h=message-id:date :from:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sasl; b=C7SvV7 gZ1lgp86gAGaXGtAWwABbIxwleeRNlae+zbO6iugXz7Z7xHkUFFQ1WoGgns9zLZJ 19IEzjicjuDovbgeFxYK65o5PAH5QrpJhQnGrtp/Q/JGQ3j7NfFRlRAiK6IKa/Nl mO47vP13w+nH9zPXw2HTmGwCyHXj34O3JC4rQ=
Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix. (unknown []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43069734EF; Wed, 4 Nov 2009 13:24:00 -0500 (EST)
Received: from administrators-macbook-pro.local (unknown []) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7EA3F734EE; Wed, 4 Nov 2009 13:23:56 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 10:24:29 -0800
From: Michael D'Errico <>
User-Agent: Thunderbird (Macintosh/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <20091030223647.GO1105@Sun.COM> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 38FE9ABA-C96F-11DE-B1CA-1B12EE7EF46B-38729857!
Subject: Re: [TLS] RESOLVED (Re: [sasl] lasgt call comments (st Call: draft-altman-tls-channel-bindings (Channel Bindings for TLS) to Proposed Standard))
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." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 18:23:43 -0000

I don't pretend to know exactly what this feature is supposed to do,
but I think using the word "connection" would be a mistake given its
widespread use meaning TCP connections, etc.

Perhaps using a different word such as "link" would portray the
meaning you want without causing confusion?


> Could we somehow refer to this? Perhaps:
>   Note: We define a new "TLS connection" to start when the client
>   sends an unencrypted (TLS_NULL_WITH_NULL_NULL cipher suite) Client
>   Hello message (which can lead to either a full handshake, or
>   resuming a session). Renegotiation (sending a Client Hello protected
>   under some other cipher suite) does not start a new "TLS connection".  
>   Note that this is separate from any notion of "connection", if any, 
>   in the underlying transport protocol (such as TCP or UDP).
> (Is this consistent with what the existing implementations do?)
> Best regards,
> Pasi