Re: [TLS] Collisions (Re: Nico's suggestions - Re: Consensus Call:

Marsh Ray <marsh@extendedsubset.com> Tue, 11 May 2010 19:30 UTC

Return-Path: <marsh@extendedsubset.com>
X-Original-To: tls@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF64028C297 for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 May 2010 12:30:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.499
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.100, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QIzXd6argM2j for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 11 May 2010 12:30:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org (mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org [204.13.248.71]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0938D3A6D41 for <tls@ietf.org>; Tue, 11 May 2010 12:27:48 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from xs01.extendedsubset.com ([69.164.193.58]) by mho-01-ewr.mailhop.org with esmtpa (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from <marsh@extendedsubset.com>) id 1OBv7B-0009Q5-2E; Tue, 11 May 2010 19:27:37 +0000
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by xs01.extendedsubset.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7A10631D; Tue, 11 May 2010 19:27:35 +0000 (UTC)
X-Mail-Handler: MailHop Outbound by DynDNS
X-Originating-IP: 69.164.193.58
X-Report-Abuse-To: abuse@dyndns.com (see http://www.dyndns.com/services/mailhop/outbound_abuse.html for abuse reporting information)
X-MHO-User: U2FsdGVkX19+H5K+By9Ir6kpgJ31c/Cz7rTn+j0bWPs=
Message-ID: <4BE9AFA9.5070607@extendedsubset.com>
Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 14:27:37 -0500
From: Marsh Ray <marsh@extendedsubset.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8) Gecko/20100216 Thunderbird/3.0.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Kemp, David P." <DPKemp@missi.ncsc.mil>
References: <20100510221531.GC9429@oracle.com><201005111339.o4BDdoYQ009725@fs4113.wdf.sap.corp> <20100511152153.GF9429@oracle.com> <201005111803.o4BI3fhO006065@stingray.missi.ncsc.mil>
In-Reply-To: <201005111803.o4BI3fhO006065@stingray.missi.ncsc.mil>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.0.1
OpenPGP: id=1E36DBF2
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: tls@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [TLS] Collisions (Re: Nico's suggestions - Re: Consensus Call:
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
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/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Tue, 11 May 2010 19:30:29 -0000

On 5/11/2010 1:03 PM, Kemp, David P. wrote:
> This sounds like a general problem unrelated to caching.
> 
> If a non-browser app cannot recover from failures, what happens when a
> bit error gets through multiple layers of detection and correction, or a
> DSL connection dies and restarts?   "Stuff happens" all the time, and
> humans know how to hit the "retry" button.  An unattended application
> that doesn't know how to recover from unexplained errors is not ready
> for prime time.

FTP, telnet, and friends were considered to work well enough for a long
time. I think SSH still doesn't have any reconnection support in the
protocol.

- Marsh