Re: [TLS] New draft: draft-solinas-tls-additional-prf-input-00.txt

Paul Hoffman <> Wed, 07 October 2009 02:35 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C194228C1D0 for <>; Tue, 6 Oct 2009 19:35:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.219
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.219 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.827, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 4KvcHTcqX03Q for <>; Tue, 6 Oct 2009 19:35:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (Balder-227.Proper.COM []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17C5A3A6915 for <>; Tue, 6 Oct 2009 19:35:16 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [] ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id n972amAX055536 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 6 Oct 2009 19:36:50 -0700 (MST) (envelope-from
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-Id: <p0624082ac6f1aeb26944@[]>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 19:36:47 -0700
To: Michael Gray <>
From: Paul Hoffman <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: Re: [TLS] New draft: draft-solinas-tls-additional-prf-input-00.txt
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." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Oct 2009 02:35:16 -0000

At 11:33 AM +1000 10/7/09, Michael Gray wrote:
>In this case should be this draft also indicate that the client MAY
>generate a fatal "handshake_failure" alert in the event that the Server
>provides insufficient data?
>Would this again be true for the Server, if a Client sends insufficient
>data? i.e. A Server MAY generate a fatal "handshake_failure" alert in the
>event that the Client provides insufficient data?

Either side MAY decide for many reasons to stop when they see the other sides's extension. I can add something to this effect to the next draft.

>Additionally, can the Server use the Client size as an indication of how
>much the Server should send? else how does the Client convey a
>minimum/desired requirement information to a Server?

It doesn't. This is really a different set of semantics than the previous draft. We realized that there was too many expectations being signalled, and decided to simplify.

--Paul Hoffman, Director
--VPN Consortium