Re: [TLS] padding bug

Hi Eric,

I don't see draft-sheffer-tls-bcp as competing with this approach. I see 
the BCP as an interim solution that allows users to improves their 
security posture today, while the WG works on TLS 1.3 and/or on 
extensions that enable us to go back to a wide selection of available 
ciphersuites.

Thanks,
	Yaron

On 09/09/2013 04:01 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> Ben,
>
> Generally, we're not doing advance code point assignments for documents
> that haven't been accepted by the TLS WG.
>
> Of course, this naturally raises the question of whether this document will
> be accepted by the TLS WG. However, as I think recent discussion indicates,
> there are a number of proposed approaches and there isn't really consensus
> to adopt this particular one (especially in view of the increased
> adoption of existing
> mechanisms such as GCM). If someone (Peter? You?) wants agenda time
> to argue for this particular approach instead of others, we're happy to
> have the
> discussion in YVR. This of course also applies to proponents of other
> approaches.
>
> Best,
> -Ekr
>
> [As Chair]
>
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 8, 2013 at 10:57 AM, Ben Laurie <benl@google.com
> <mailto:benl@google.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>     On 8 September 2013 14:47, Dr Stephen Henson
>     <lists@drh-consultancy.co.uk <mailto:lists@drh-consultancy.co.uk>>
>     wrote:
>
>         On 08/09/2013 13:07, Dr Stephen Henson wrote:
>          > On 08/09/2013 03:59, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>          >> [old thread alert!]
>          >>
>          >>
>          >>> 2.       An extension for Encrypt-then-MAC (i.e. this draft)
>          >>
>          >>> Was any consensus achieved as to the best approach?
>          >>
>          >
>          > I can add a data point to this. I spent an afternoon
>         implementing this (i.e.
>          > the encrypt then mac draft) a while ago in OpenSSL. It was
>         pretty easy to do
>          > and interoped fine with the test servers.
>          >
>          > I'll make it available as an experimental feature in OpenSSL
>         master branch.
>          >
>
>         Well I've added this and spotted a problem. The draft extension
>         value (0x10)
>         clashes with the draft value used in the ALPN specification.
>
>
>     Given that the ALPN draft apparently has an allocated number, can we
>     get one allocated to this I-D?
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     TLS mailing list
>     TLS@ietf.org <mailto:TLS@ietf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> TLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>