IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] Consensus Call on draft-ietf-tls-dnssec-chain-extension

Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org> Wed, 18 April 2018 20:53 UTC

Return-Path: <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org>
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 D20BB126DFB for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 13:53:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.201
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.201 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 LF9MUivFbY4J for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 13:53:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mournblade.imrryr.org (mournblade.imrryr.org [108.5.242.66]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8327B126C3D for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 13:53:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.200.0.109] (unknown [8.2.105.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mournblade.imrryr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AE5C67A3309 for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 20:53:54 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from ietf-dane@dukhovni.org)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.3 \(3445.6.18\))
From: Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org>
In-Reply-To: <CAL02cgSQbvyXuekd7x_g0DHcxYmfsydKXGDs6EQwuX5ScPYucQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 16:53:53 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Reply-To: TLS WG <tls@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <DFF43896-B26C-4E7A-8D95-A90B2F981041@dukhovni.org>
References: <CAOgPGoAhzEtxpW5mzmkf2kv3AcugNy0dAzhvpaqrTSuMSqWqfw@mail.gmail.com> <CAOgPGoCbHzuAZra5+i647gtLbR9ZV0-nEE+A7K6e8cUMNjNYtA@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LRH.2.21.1804181640480.29344@bofh.nohats.ca> <CAL02cgSQbvyXuekd7x_g0DHcxYmfsydKXGDs6EQwuX5ScPYucQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: TLS WG <tls@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.6.18)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/kQk6oa7v18VQ4FD6DyhkcVXfz44>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Consensus Call on draft-ietf-tls-dnssec-chain-extension
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 20:53:57 -0000


> On Apr 18, 2018, at 4:47 PM, Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> wrote:
> 
> I do not support adding a field to the protocol with semantics to be defined later. 

And the semantics are defined.  The server must send zero, and the client must read it as zero.  The propose semantics PROHIBIT pinning, which is what everyone seems to want presently.

Future semantics when BOTH client and server implement a forthcoming spec will to support pinning as described for up to the indicated time (in suitable units).

-- 
	Viktor.

v2.15.0 | Report a Bug | By Email