Re: [TLS] RFC 4507bis
Mike <mike-list@pobox.com> Wed, 01 August 2007 18:49 UTC
Return-path: <tls-bounces@lists.ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGJFn-0003Ti-Oh; Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:49:03 -0400
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGJFm-0003Od-4z for tls@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:49:02 -0400
Received: from rune.pobox.com ([208.210.124.79]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IGJFl-0007ng-Ra for tls@ietf.org; Wed, 01 Aug 2007 14:49:02 -0400
Received: from rune (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rune.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 329D61196BB for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Aug 2007 14:49:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.8] (wsip-24-234-114-35.lv.lv.cox.net [24.234.114.35]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by rune.sasl.smtp.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA7721196B9 for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 1 Aug 2007 14:49:20 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <46B0D5EB.9040803@pobox.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Aug 2007 11:50:19 -0700
From: Mike <mike-list@pobox.com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.5 (Windows/20070716)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tls@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [TLS] RFC 4507bis
References: <AC1CFD94F59A264488DC2BEC3E890DE5043F329D@xmb-sjc-225.amer.cisco.com> <46B09C2B.70609@pobox.com> <46B0B88D.5000909@drh-consultancy.demon.co.uk> <46B0CAA7.2080309@drh-consultancy.demon.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <46B0CAA7.2080309@drh-consultancy.demon.co.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: cf4fa59384e76e63313391b70cd0dd25
Cc:
X-BeenThere: tls@lists.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.lists.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/tls>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@lists.ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: tls-bounces@lists.ietf.org
>>> The message flow diagram in the draft that shows session >>> resumption has the server send an empty SessionTicket >>> extension. If the message flow above is also allowed >>> (where no SessionTicket extension is sent by the server), >>> then I think you should include the diagram in the spec. >> >> I agree that some clarification is needed in that case. > > Actually now I've re-read it this is exactly what Figure 3 is showing. But Figure 3 illustrates a full handshake. The case I'm talking about is an abbreviated handshake (session resume) without the server sending an empty SessionTicket extension or NewSessionTicket message. Mike _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
- [TLS] RFC 4507bis Mike
- Re: [TLS] RFC 4507bis jwkckid1
- RE: [TLS] RFC 4507bis Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)
- Re: [TLS] RFC 4507bis Mike
- Re: [TLS] RFC 4507bis Dr Stephen Henson
- Re: [TLS] RFC 4507bis Dr Stephen Henson
- Re: [TLS] RFC 4507bis Mike