Re: [TLS] Justification

Michael D'Errico <mike-list@pobox.com> Wed, 12 May 2010 16:16 UTC

Return-Path: <mike-list@pobox.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 F12F928C2BC for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 May 2010 09:16:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.882
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.882 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.717, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 NI7SSdlE-tOs for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 May 2010 09:16:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com [208.72.237.25]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D602728C2BD for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 May 2010 08:58:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A85BB2E3A; Wed, 12 May 2010 11:58:12 -0400 (EDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=message-id :date:from:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=HZqF17DJTlKK UJ2fUSSmAFaiENo=; b=NhO4hQLWZAi9K+gFEOgRaQLAtlHeCxEtILmy7WKMPhjx etAc5ClXGsDc69HAdQYmg8UjpMlk9P1Lu16AvTP7OR/pdF1I4k87Z9H/4p3UZRF8 kFYorZSYsYaMzGEEuUPvnby7k8WYzPpl+85FS5qaE1h1Kfvz7G4/5ohVPY2cyBA=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=message-id:date :from:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sasl; b=XKL/yD UqgRN/fZQwhSBiy4MKeoCHCxvh2Erb//57W1l69vSj8M9kf4t0KWqEIsOdGmGuzM xY9YebExkZ7AqQkXfPw7WblXle3GkhOWQZF+BvFrehqcr2e6ALYYxMsQSrCA133x 32euU4H5NtwQ23U9KTDdOgCnZRO8qbfpeP0Rc=
Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix. (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1E7DB2E36; Wed, 12 May 2010 11:58:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from administrators-macbook-pro.local (unknown [24.234.114.35]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 30BE3B2E33; Wed, 12 May 2010 11:58:05 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <4BEAD00C.6010703@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 08:58:04 -0700
From: Michael D'Errico <mike-list@pobox.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Macintosh/20090812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Adam Langley <agl@google.com>
References: <20100510221531.GC9429@oracle.com> <201005111803.o4BI3fhO006065@stingray.missi.ncsc.mil> <20100511190958.GR9429@oracle.com> <4BE9B0BC.2000101@extendedsubset.com> <20100511194620.GU9429@oracle.com> <4BE9B856.40000@extendedsubset.com> <20100511200728.GW9429@oracle.com> <4BE9CC88.6040103@extendedsubset.com> <87aas5sbzy.fsf@mocca.josefsson.org> <4BEAC145.60607@pobox.com> <n2va84d7bc61005120811o737c2011i27f9d40e88417539@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <n2va84d7bc61005120811o737c2011i27f9d40e88417539@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 28DB50CE-5DDF-11DF-B028-D033EE7EF46B-38729857!a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com
Cc: Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org>, "Kemp, David P." <DPKemp@missi.ncsc.mil>, tls@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [TLS] Justification
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: Wed, 12 May 2010 16:16:59 -0000

Adam Langley wrote:
> On Wed, May 12, 2010 at 10:55 AM, Michael D'Errico <mike-list@pobox.com> wrote:
>> Can someone please remind me why we want cached-info?  It seems that
>> the problems it creates aren't worth the small optimization it might
>> provide.
> 
> In order to support multi-ocsp stapling in the future without
> overflowing the initcwnd limit.

I know what OCSP is, but not the rest.  Even so, shouldn't we wait
until this "future" need exists before we try to optimize it?

Or better yet, design multi-ocsp stapling itself to be optimized
the way you want.

Mike