IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] Proposed Change to Certificate message (#654)

Ilari Liusvaara <ilariliusvaara@welho.com> Sat, 24 September 2016 09:17 UTC

Return-Path: <ilariliusvaara@welho.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 E257312B157 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 24 Sep 2016 02:17:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.216
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.216 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-2.316] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 G8EOi2cTUuqd for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 24 Sep 2016 02:17:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from welho-filter4.welho.com (welho-filter4.welho.com [83.102.41.26]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 98C3E12B460 for <TLS@ietf.org>; Sat, 24 Sep 2016 02:17:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by welho-filter4.welho.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF661164B4; Sat, 24 Sep 2016 12:17:55 +0300 (EEST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at pp.htv.fi
Received: from welho-smtp2.welho.com ([IPv6:::ffff:83.102.41.85]) by localhost (welho-filter4.welho.com [::ffff:83.102.41.26]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lt_1ASovGJy6; Sat, 24 Sep 2016 12:17:55 +0300 (EEST)
Received: from LK-Perkele-V2 (87-100-237-87.bb.dnainternet.fi [87.100.237.87]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by welho-smtp2.welho.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9F06521C; Sat, 24 Sep 2016 12:17:55 +0300 (EEST)
Date: Sat, 24 Sep 2016 12:17:51 +0300
From: Ilari Liusvaara <ilariliusvaara@welho.com>
To: Nick Sullivan <nicholas.sullivan@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20160924091751.GA7834@LK-Perkele-V2.elisa-laajakaista.fi>
References: <CAOjisRyDx0Wa5tcFT3gN496jhf-AjLfDH4JNN+w70r8jBsxt5g@mail.gmail.com> <CAFewVt4SOTU18xj45i_Eox2g5zaZyTyD6SP86cjBciXpuC+sDw@mail.gmail.com> <CAOjisRwcR3NUCnCsA+kauGNiOz-TAezskYzM8g3V9nxUCFoaWw@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBPOsBXv3yCoVrQmfM99JvaD0P=7Wy0EG5wY_d=dTH_Oug@mail.gmail.com> <CAAZdMacihp1pxk76UY2n66ZqDvcOeqS8vm0n3mObkSBVY0PwBg@mail.gmail.com> <CAOjisRwHUSEthSt6Tt6hYRRnhW6snWiZrCS+sN17VnCRz=e5ow@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAOjisRwHUSEthSt6Tt6hYRRnhW6snWiZrCS+sN17VnCRz=e5ow@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: ilariliusvaara@welho.com
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/v6m_XONGPKY87XllAKSmW-N7Gbg>
Cc: "tls@ietf.org" <TLS@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Proposed Change to Certificate message (#654)
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Sat, 24 Sep 2016 09:18:00 -0000

On Fri, Sep 23, 2016 at 11:05:10PM +0000, Nick Sullivan wrote:
> Thanks for the suggestions. I've restructured my PR to include an array of
> SingleCertificate objects in the Certificate structure.

It occured to me that certain extensions might be considered to be per-
chain. Like e.g. type of the certificate. Where do extensions like that
go? Always to the extension block of the first certificate (except that
might cause somewhat of a cyclic dependency in parsing)?

And then there is the user_mapping. I presume mechanism like this is to
be used to transport it (avoiding need to mess with new handshake
messages and such.
 
> Ilari: I agree that the post-hanshake auth mechanism as currently described
> is a bit lacking, but I'd like to sort this out first.

Well, more like I was annoyed at having to implement that at all and the
fact that it requires remembering a hash state (which may be a quite
harsh requirement in some cases).


-Ilari

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email