Re: [TLS] RFC-4366-bis and the unrecognized_name(112) alert

Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com> Tue, 08 June 2010 14:48 UTC

Return-Path: <d3e3e3@gmail.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 47FB428C1D3 for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Jun 2010 07:48:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.354
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.354 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.352, BAYES_50=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001]
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 V1D0Ha37yBNK for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 8 Jun 2010 07:48:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4DB3928C1BD for <tls@ietf.org>; Tue, 8 Jun 2010 07:48:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wyb32 with SMTP id 32so821061wyb.31 for <tls@ietf.org>; Tue, 08 Jun 2010 07:48:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=4I35Pz8KJttxnpxwxNUqPtr4jIJjYedDsWRHKhr5c40=; b=xGckcH+ymNm5ht8m1dF6FEQDn/kTOdUaGheXiVrGgA7JBoKGtssGCZMHGc9lYQVT6Y hQAn1CFt6bRe7Pvw2dQGO8FfbQB3sSkGgA00iTj3xu21Il+u5MUbLEyo609L0q9EV6+n +almrkf8U2wdLUsJoaAJz8afvD6k840WvJwh4=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=DfwtZR6cMV+9j52rLY1OqPTC5kj8Exuyi1WgOPikq9F6r9BtLSLgVpxwwU35Yyw/nU aDww6ph6FYv9uftAmylo8V6Q/vkQ1Qs01MnV/2+j4Y0ELVGJA4vjE3qZ6wD/KCZQAj8c EjZDHbLlZ/LNWnIxMg59LaPGtuLjicVWYj8aU=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.227.72.197 with SMTP id n5mr15607773wbj.48.1276008534679; Tue, 08 Jun 2010 07:48:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.229.210 with HTTP; Tue, 8 Jun 2010 07:48:53 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <201006081327.o58DRkWD016953@fs4113.wdf.sap.corp>
References: <E1OLpyn-0007OA-TL@wintermute02.cs.auckland.ac.nz> <201006081327.o58DRkWD016953@fs4113.wdf.sap.corp>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2010 10:48:53 -0400
Message-ID: <AANLkTik2qke3blLZqMOTf6emo2Of4Yno08ojt0rs8dqx@mail.gmail.com>
From: Donald Eastlake <d3e3e3@gmail.com>
To: tls@ietf.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=0016367fb70d70a0c8048885e3e0
Subject: Re: [TLS] RFC-4366-bis and the unrecognized_name(112) alert
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: Tue, 08 Jun 2010 14:48:59 -0000

My belief is that the only reason for different errors/warnings/alerts to
have different *numbers* is so that programs can, in a reliable way, behave
differently based on that number.

Donald
=============================
Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
155 Beaver Street
Milford, MA 01757 USA
d3e3e3@gmail.com