Re: [TLS] [ECH] Reverting the config ID change

Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie> Wed, 17 February 2021 21:05 UTC

Return-Path: <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B6BB3A1068 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 13:05:39 -0800 (PST)
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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cs.tcd.ie
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 pnO6898d_P5U for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 13:05:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [134.226.56.6]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 22B293A1050 for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 13:05:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB460BE24; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 21:05:34 +0000 (GMT)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at scss.tcd.ie
Received: from mercury.scss.tcd.ie ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mercury.scss.tcd.ie [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jbKZ3bfB9Bqq; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 21:05:33 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from [10.244.2.119] (95-45-153-252-dynamic.agg2.phb.bdt-fng.eircom.net [95.45.153.252]) by mercury.scss.tcd.ie (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id DC6B9BE1C; Wed, 17 Feb 2021 21:05:29 +0000 (GMT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cs.tcd.ie; s=mail; t=1613595933; bh=5b0sDo9lJZgpCh2S0/+16YfAxLP4A7iunJuKylHhYpw=; h=Subject:To:Cc:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=F0JD/NgUvxLYVdWaE74+JYy+rqj1XDmKBAZuRUgDN27265VZrphBzQjWqA6q4Z6XA Jeto4WOwogypeJLcGK96o/vGNoWlFBRMqyhkmMnJ/KDOFB/CAwOz6CFtBf0TAWqt9Q moJobuKn0Ah/ECLl4/ouEUsr5RUDgFOhEQvVU6Bk=
To: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Cc: Christopher Wood <caw@heapingbits.net>, "TLS@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
References: <e44be9d1-bd0a-4e99-b092-b1b21c517b0e@www.fastmail.com> <7925717a-bcba-4b29-b12b-b47e622c62b3@www.fastmail.com> <CABcZeBO20+09dZ+9ckdm=N-RigMh_O+Svx3m51NsXZY1QFZ73Q@mail.gmail.com> <e55a60e4-e948-4cc5-ad1a-0a1086485305@www.fastmail.com> <b35c4e78-d0ff-8fed-5297-4f16667f18d8@cs.tcd.ie> <CABcZeBPT8mhsqJz_EiCQnzpNiC+S30uMA=S50kV-6Jc7EnciZw@mail.gmail.com> <f3e974b5-fb97-d92b-9257-5910f2b54245@cs.tcd.ie> <CABcZeBPWVv2dDoKTabS6fOUMRT_V7DoygXsG62C1MJiCArxVSA@mail.gmail.com> <b9007c4f-18c7-d85f-eaee-62f0f004a6aa@cs.tcd.ie> <CABcZeBNNHT1cfAPVwAVeYh8cFvDgMxYgmxGc96eXrqa4UN8P9Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
Message-ID: <35fd7353-feb5-8d6a-89f7-7c6922c7e328@cs.tcd.ie>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2021 21:05:28 +0000
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBNNHT1cfAPVwAVeYh8cFvDgMxYgmxGc96eXrqa4UN8P9Q@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="8Z6k4pCYzOlmSQEoAS1an3HQb237eLKF4"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/oQIh2IkfD3B5dqggIJ8KQ2_f3no>
Subject: Re: [TLS] [ECH] Reverting the config ID change
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 17 Feb 2021 21:05:39 -0000


On 17/02/2021 21:00, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 8:24 AM Stephen Farrell <stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
> wrote:
> 
>>
>>
>> On 17/02/2021 16:00, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 4:44 PM Stephen Farrell <
>> stephen.farrell@cs.tcd.ie>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 17/02/2021 00:34, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>>>>> How is it any harder to manage a multi-octet server-chosen value than a
>>>>> single-octet server-chosen value?
>>>>
>>>> Easier for the library on the server side. If it's >1 octet
>>>> then someone will want some semantics. If ==1 then they'll
>>>> have to accept none and possible collisions so it can be
>>>> handled independently inside the library.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The server is free to enforce 1 byte.
>>
>> A server operator would be free to do that. The person
>> writing the code likely would not be as some server
>> operator would also be free to try impose semantics
>> on a multibyte field.
>>
> 
> Yeah, I don't really agree that we should restrict every server in order to
> make it easier for the people writing SSL stacks to tell server operators
> "no".

Yes, we disagree.

(This mail has as much fresh content as the one to which I'm
replying:-)

S.

> 
> -Ekr
> 
> 
>> S.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> -Ekr
>>>
>>
>