IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] Analysis of Interop scenarios TLS extension RI w/MCSV

Michael Gray <mickgray@au1.ibm.com> Fri, 11 December 2009 07:05 UTC

Return-Path: <mickgray@au1.ibm.com>
X-Original-To: tls@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C24383A6A11 for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Dec 2009 23:05:39 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.594
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.594 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.005, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2TOggzIk6haU for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 10 Dec 2009 23:05:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from e23smtp03.au.ibm.com (e23smtp03.au.ibm.com [202.81.31.145]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A00963A69B0 for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 10 Dec 2009 23:05:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from d23relay05.au.ibm.com (d23relay05.au.ibm.com [202.81.31.247]) by e23smtp03.au.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.1) with ESMTP id nBB72aRw027658 for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:02:36 +1100
Received: from d23av04.au.ibm.com (d23av04.au.ibm.com [9.190.235.139]) by d23relay05.au.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id nBB71W4j1634554 for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:01:32 +1100
Received: from d23av04.au.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d23av04.au.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id nBB75Mdr011608 for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:05:22 +1100
Received: from d23ml003.au.ibm.com (d23ml003.au.ibm.com [9.190.250.22]) by d23av04.au.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id nBB75MbE011605; Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:05:22 +1100
In-Reply-To: <4B21ACFD.8010701@bolyard.me>
To: Nelson B Bolyard <nelson@bolyard.me>
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF277 June 21, 2006
Message-ID: <OF7DB55E76.C2E763A8-ON4A257689.000FB92B-4A257689.0026ED52@au1.ibm.com>
From: Michael Gray <mickgray@au1.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 17:05:11 +1000
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on d23ml003/23/M/IBM(Release 7.0.2FP3HF80 | July 14, 2008) at 11/12/2009 18:12:22
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Cc: tls@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [TLS] Analysis of Interop scenarios TLS extension RI w/MCSV
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
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." <tls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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, 11 Dec 2009 07:05:40 -0000

tls-bounces@ietf.org wrote on 11/12/2009 12:22:53 PM:

> On 2009-12-09 18:16 PST, Michael Gray wrote:
>
> > Given this large test impact I find the
> > draft-mrex-tls-secure-renegotiation-03 alternate solution (which does
not
> > require full extension implementation) to be preferable.
>
> Of course, neither does draft-ietf-tls-renegotiation-01.txt require full
> extension implementation, so the absence of that requirements is not a
> basis for preference of one over the other.

To be clear: draft-ietf-tls-renegotiation-01.txt requires data exchange by
the RI extension whereas draft-mrex-tls-secure-renegotiation-03 does not.

> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> TLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls

v2.28.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status