IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] Consensus Call on draft-ietf-tls-dnssec-chain-extension

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Wed, 18 April 2018 20:59 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.com>
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 790A0126C3D for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 13:59:43 -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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cryptonector.com
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 zm4GrRbg9HAs for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 13:59:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a49.g.dreamhost.com (sub4.mail.dreamhost.com [69.163.253.135]) (using TLSv1.1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 018C4126CF6 for <tls@ietf.org>; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 13:59:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a49.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a49.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 749C168024A4C; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 13:59:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h=date :from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-type:in-reply-to; s=cryptonector.com; bh=UEI7zbyCgU2H00 9U1dVtpqO9p1U=; b=UOh1ahRdt0cAY6yRlWqM5ZA4X4Sl5aziIROikUJCw5912/ 78qDY8mt074PWLYcsNjYKzuE2sRn4KX2FH8YBPI9Ju3/SQpCn4zl2Ufh9xK2JUsD irGLqafES7hJ5Ya70XfFuj4aY3a0a6iMLKQ5GwEXrWFymZTdCHbHjtnurPhMs=
Received: from localhost (cpe-70-123-158-140.austin.res.rr.com [70.123.158.140]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a49.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2BE8D68024A4B; Wed, 18 Apr 2018 13:59:41 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 15:56:04 -0500
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx>
Cc: TLS WG <tls@ietf.org>
Message-ID: <20180418205604.GE25259@localhost>
References: <CAOgPGoAhzEtxpW5mzmkf2kv3AcugNy0dAzhvpaqrTSuMSqWqfw@mail.gmail.com> <CAOgPGoCbHzuAZra5+i647gtLbR9ZV0-nEE+A7K6e8cUMNjNYtA@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.LRH.2.21.1804181640480.29344@bofh.nohats.ca> <CAL02cgSQbvyXuekd7x_g0DHcxYmfsydKXGDs6EQwuX5ScPYucQ@mail.gmail.com> <81405A7A-B7DC-45B1-8F7C-B96D3FD121AE@dukhovni.org> <CAL02cgQAA6ktnkPwaCKsrzi9tYrs3ELcW6KG=UfM43iO5smdEA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAL02cgQAA6ktnkPwaCKsrzi9tYrs3ELcW6KG=UfM43iO5smdEA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/taXkq5f_OcO2P2isD2zHp79vXG4>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Consensus Call on draft-ietf-tls-dnssec-chain-extension
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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, 18 Apr 2018 20:59:43 -0000

On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 04:52:14PM -0400, Richard Barnes wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 4:48 PM, Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-dane@dukhovni.org>
> wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> > > On Apr 18, 2018, at 4:47 PM, Richard Barnes <rlb@ipv.sx> wrote:
> > >
> > > I do not support adding a field to the protocol with semantics to be
> > defined later.  Especially a 16-byte field, which is a fair bit of cruft to
> > carry around.
> >
> > The 16-byte is a typo.  It was supposed to be 16-bit.  My fault. Sorry.
> >
> 
> Secondary point.  Still don't think we should deliberately include
> undefined fields, e.g., because part of the discussion is whether 16 bits
> is the right size.

It's not as if we've never had reserved fields.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email