IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] Analysis of Interop scenarios TLS extension RI w/MCSV

Steve Checkoway <s@pahtak.org> Sat, 12 December 2009 03:34 UTC

Return-Path: <s@pahtak.org>
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 85CF63A67F2 for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:34:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.242
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.242 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.358, 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 EcgNaNsrLuMI for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:34:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-gx0-f228.google.com (mail-gx0-f228.google.com [209.85.217.228]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A65B33A68B1 for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:34:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: by gxk28 with SMTP id 28so1638601gxk.9 for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:34:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.90.215.9 with SMTP id n9mr2419023agg.98.1260588880665; Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:34:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mb.pahtak.org (ip68-107-82-55.sd.sd.cox.net [68.107.82.55]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id 9sm938425ywf.50.2009.12.11.19.34.38 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:34:39 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1077)
From: Steve Checkoway <s@pahtak.org>
In-Reply-To: <200912112307.nBBN7eH3007023@fs4113.wdf.sap.corp>
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:34:37 -0800
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <FF9DC765-0A99-4FB1-A9E2-80EEBEC8CB1E@pahtak.org>
References: <200912112307.nBBN7eH3007023@fs4113.wdf.sap.corp>
To: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1077)
Subject: Re: [TLS] Analysis of Interop scenarios TLS extension RI w/MCSV
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: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 03:34:56 -0000

On Dec 11, 2009, at 3:07 PM, Martin Rex wrote:

> Nelson B Bolyard wrote:
>> 
>>> The following URL says "SPEC":
>>> http://web.archive.org/web/20050207004652/wp.netscape.com/eng/ssl3/3-SPEC.HTM
>>> This URL says "Draft":
>>> http://web.archive.org/web/20050206122938/wp.netscape.com/eng/ssl3/draft302.txt
>>> 
>>> and includes an _explicit_ expiration of May 1997.
>> 
>> Yes, all the drafts expired, including the one that says "spec".
> 
> Nope.  The one calles SPEC does NOT have an expiration.

Not that this matters at all for the purposes of fixing TLS, but in what way does it not have an expiration? The first paragraph establishes that the document is an Internet-Draft. The second paragraph reminds readers that Internet-Drafts expire after six months. <http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://wp.netscape.com/eng/ssl3/3-SPEC.HTM> makes clear that this document is more than six months old. That draft has expired.

-- 
Steve Checkoway

v2.28.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status