IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] Call for Consensus on removal of renegotiation

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Thu, 26 June 2014 21:29 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
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 656A91B2F4B for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 14:29:17 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 kHX3fA42ougx for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 14:29:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wg0-x22b.google.com (mail-wg0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c00::22b]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C09191B2F46 for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 14:29:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-wg0-f43.google.com with SMTP id b13so4229108wgh.26 for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 14:29:14 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=OI5fleOy91f6VJp9gA486DZjYUR57ECWqKkhQ+I/CJY=; b=yqbjX4ZPgw5G/U2gU/A3CwmLPZdOeNEnYacbfSNGYdZupi0tFbyU7OZrrEseI/cTLB efYfH27wqRj8vG8mtJ4s+dyF8/ifwvuS6o+8tI9O34jxjC5v39G3VIIACUDpDNE9GADk 8LUA4yDlZllsfPkxghzwpANJ6LV/nie8fKqN44a5Yc5q7PAUwV3VIOjpYxjQQZWcmDeP DykRHwpLj6I5U6NyR6qpO7CkSmxOSKkPY8Q4hC/xqfuPRkoqtnb5Vv8XN35w7I3d0Mu5 krAC3MtxyCI46Z+pmfTtFvU5zi86lT9e/dKpgnGiikgYqHm0MHLV1fcAaM2ydZw7ITfz 8+Dw==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.79.38 with SMTP id g6mr6998794wix.61.1403818154247; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 14:29:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.51.134 with HTTP; Thu, 26 Jun 2014 14:29:14 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CE5218A410D7774BA10C7A54F8BB4D305EBAC9@SEAEMBX02.olympus.F5Net.com>
References: <B7430912-46B8-49DD-85EC-00FC5BC3B8D3@cisco.com> <20140626143044.F3B0C1AD68@ld9781.wdf.sap.corp> <CE5218A410D7774BA10C7A54F8BB4D305EBAC9@SEAEMBX02.olympus.F5Net.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 14:29:14 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnVBsAJ3+KaR87WgUO0oQ=mYrnA7r4+qSOdcrmkM3ne7iw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: Brian Hamon <B.Hamon@f5.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/kbeTUl-u_1bU3nBVHG3vnQ5ggYQ
Cc: "<tls@ietf.org>" <tls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Call for Consensus on removal of renegotiation
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: <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: Thu, 26 Jun 2014 21:29:17 -0000

On 26 June 2014 14:18, Brian Hamon <B.Hamon@f5.com> wrote:
> I would argue that session resumption should revert the client's identity back to "unauthenticated". This avoids a lot of the complicated workarounds required for #2.

I hope that you realize that we're not talking about resumption right
at this moment.  There are some interactions with resumption, but I
think we're trying not to overcomplicate the issue by considering the
implications of those just yet.

That said, if you did mean renegotiation in the above statement.  I
don't think that making any recommendation to this effect will have
any material impact on the sorts of bugs we've seen with
renegotiation.  You can *say* that people should do this or that
because it's good practice, but I think that that is just wishful
thinking.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email