IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] Consensus on PR 169 - relax certificate list requirements

Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Mon, 31 August 2015 15:59 UTC

Return-Path: <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB1831B5423 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Aug 2015 08:59:09 -0700 (PDT)
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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 fvJO0LmCfyg9 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 31 Aug 2015 08:59:08 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x22f.google.com (mail-qk0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B838A1B5424 for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Aug 2015 08:59:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by qkbp67 with SMTP id p67so3046270qkb.3 for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 31 Aug 2015 08:59:07 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=J8SizVayc/4dMQIGZ1QtZ04Y9Sui8WM8OtXPkGn/kNo=; b=A+1nUFIDwxJJWC/HyEgOMaC0hk8h27FnosKhWtYtr9MvON15W7G+Evj/JWovwA+PVO 1r8B/F1YE0dod5Aw+9x2Jv5YBofNzK/ysQG912P1Wo+ubBYAfYpNJPfodogvDpJab0DA cudzv1U3teSoOzx8sJJPSr7QEwBkHUOF5WNP+CUpE+ShgncoybRMjDizkfUCsY4pjiie fc/CYPhb69xpSzqic6Pvda4j8llnfRFBQg3e8dfIOe3JgBA2b6KiJ5cLuVFFmxe1yFjD icfcN7IRE2bnCekxGqilRFUnOffVfZaNDDK5Bjs5qdoM/Xn+wTGDdVGE2F90dyfIsY6b u3ow==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.129.51.88 with SMTP id z85mr10113950ywz.148.1441036747035; Mon, 31 Aug 2015 08:59:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.129.133.130 with HTTP; Mon, 31 Aug 2015 08:59:06 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <55E4792A.30809@redhat.com>
References: <CAOgPGoAPCXkzc=01_+FPSJcxV8vEQmBUYNGYaWMdKpSGU0M0Lg@mail.gmail.com> <201508261742.01242.davemgarrett@gmail.com> <55E4423B.3010101@redhat.com> <CABkgnnX8dbQix_DZG5fxoFWK9e5FmUC1szneudssCDdZ0M3U+w@mail.gmail.com> <55E4792A.30809@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 08:59:06 -0700
Message-ID: <CABkgnnWVyG6hfgXuxmDPLMKQ=6=y27facgEY=n9MMmzmGP+prQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
To: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/t6DX4kvOeiPcdqVsTd4OfMnjJdY>
Cc: "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Consensus on PR 169 - relax certificate list requirements
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 15:59:09 -0000

On 31 August 2015 at 08:56, Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 08/31/2015 05:54 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
>> On 31 August 2015 at 05:02, Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> MUST NOT automatically complete incomplete chains
>>
>> Um, no.  I realize that this is a feature that is hard for others to
>> replicate, but being able to reach sites is important to people.  All
>> browsers do this, and I don't see any reason to stop.
>
> The reason to stop is that people only test with long-running, well-used
> browser profiles, and it is difficult to explain to them that things
> don't work if you just installed a fresh system.  I lost countless hours
> to that.  As in other cases, browsers papering over site configuration
> errors causes ecosystem damage.


I tell you what, we'll stop:
a) after all the other browsers stop, and
b) when the number of sites that become unreachable as a result is low
enough (I think that 1/1000 connections might be high)

I know that it sucks, but it's hard to turn off something like that
when it has a large compatibility risk and no security upside.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email