Re: [TLS] RFC 6066 - Max fragment length negotiation
Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> Sun, 19 March 2017 09:30 UTC
Return-Path: <martin.thomson@gmail.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 5B34312947F for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Mar 2017 02:30:02 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.699
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.699 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.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 FuloD9w9mlDE for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Mar 2017 02:30:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt0-x230.google.com (mail-qt0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::230]) (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 D890012441E for <tls@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Mar 2017 02:30:00 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt0-x230.google.com with SMTP id x35so89021491qtc.2 for <tls@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Mar 2017 02:30:00 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=alggsat5saDCVHbG6spQ5Dxp3mJMuLPIV3qYCDkkudg=; b=MPFrBsRDRNOCZFuhqvy8vIRtKPGmOWENKjdh4Jn/qLGNkcsVtiIC3pLn1RvxiTOUu7 uAwDELMXdggtXOahEVipiCDdCkwsYvc/3jJe8rC9u3w1xvyHHnSPJzpPMqON2b11IcZA /4ZzeOUhKZbXpEhlfCGH5qiYdJ/btGzkxUMXPO/Ju6Mo45JStbQQ4itLkzKyo2z9lR/t EzX8xKmuk99Sw+BUqaV0f9W29JsVEhaOk+GApoznJ23GvsPOv8rkb3vfO+Bp8HYRkkR8 BZwKla917mPYfPsX6l+5a5ts6nOEeVJpdRzeC/ESGZ9j2EfmD1Kz7b6/dxon4aAk2NfS h7EA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=alggsat5saDCVHbG6spQ5Dxp3mJMuLPIV3qYCDkkudg=; b=HjteIAaiLO4lmkQ8qpgNrO6pAjy7WTaEiO/9FfiT0kMQLYmEjNGXesabUBCvLag5OB 7BuaLEP8rmERjBzPw7iJrdLzt4IuWZzcBEjgqv7NP0s4iN0TM2qeHtzu3b4ely5oWqta q4B0c7e0FDl7msWoeQ+LO+JMb6HoiYYyJiZf31hSi6SFVgxkgxE3AJK8BCE4LDTyqYSm PV9nb/l1OTBYaitfpNqGvVmhjZ0VPe9J63MwLoGQuCEOmyDY1AuJ2T43YJLJ9Pt8BL0t 2H2R9Cu+yoK3GUjzRNFKMKkpzKCr5KEb5V2W5Lv0dzhJLKNh0RB2P5c+ng6Wo3ayBLEd LdDQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AFeK/H2BE4seJEop8C1oCEn00jw/eMvv5rnyHlfqkVUl9351sX7nmWu68GMqD5GhXs2cdO+U+uvC9QLZW3QjqA==
X-Received: by 10.200.3.214 with SMTP id z22mr23140020qtg.3.1489915800127; Sun, 19 Mar 2017 02:30:00 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.140.27.194 with HTTP; Sun, 19 Mar 2017 02:29:59 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1489829754868.16595@cs.auckland.ac.nz>
References: <CACaGApnuePX7x4_4nj=z6=+xXbEyHRL9yr7TW96_yxVDo2eKkw@mail.gmail.com> <1489829754868.16595@cs.auckland.ac.nz>
From: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Mar 2017 20:29:59 +1100
Message-ID: <CABkgnnWQcA+rMFACCCY1sMpvPPu4qr+u-s7+dFzHqxn-AvucmQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Peter Gutmann <pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz>
Cc: Joseph Birr-Pixton <jpixton@gmail.com>, "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/xCZQJHike5EAB6sl7TsS8X1V7E0>
Subject: Re: [TLS] RFC 6066 - Max fragment length negotiation
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: Sun, 19 Mar 2017 09:30:02 -0000
On 18 March 2017 at 20:36, Peter Gutmann <pgut001@cs.auckland.ac.nz> wrote: > Incidentally, has anyone else who's implemented this dealt in the weird > omission of 8K by using the logical value 5 that follows 1, 2, 3, 4 for 512, > 1K, 2K, and 4K? In many cases 8K is just what you need, it halves memory > consumption while being large enough to not have to worry about fragmenting > handshake messages. No matter how much of a good idea that is, you would risk handshake failure by doing so. Compliant server implementations are required to send an "illegal_parameter" alert if you send that.
- [TLS] RFC 6066 - Max fragment length negotiation Nitin Shrivastav
- Re: [TLS] RFC 6066 - Max fragment length negotiat… Yoav Nir
- Re: [TLS] RFC 6066 - Max fragment length negotiat… Yoav Nir
- Re: [TLS] RFC 6066 - Max fragment length negotiat… Peter Gutmann
- Re: [TLS] RFC 6066 - Max fragment length negotiat… Nitin Shrivastav
- Re: [TLS] RFC 6066 - Max fragment length negotiat… Peter Gutmann
- Re: [TLS] RFC 6066 - Max fragment length negotiat… Nitin Shrivastav
- Re: [TLS] RFC 6066 - Max fragment length negotiat… Martin Thomson
- Re: [TLS] RFC 6066 - Max fragment length negotiat… Peter Gutmann
- Re: [TLS] RFC 6066 - Max fragment length negotiat… Martin Thomson
- Re: [TLS] RFC 6066 - Max fragment length negotiat… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [TLS] RFC 6066 - Max fragment length negotiat… Peter Gutmann
- Re: [TLS] RFC 6066 - Max fragment length negotiat… Martin Thomson
- Re: [TLS] RFC 6066 - Max fragment length negotiat… Martin Thomson
- Re: [TLS] RFC 6066 - Max fragment length negotiat… Peter Gutmann
- Re: [TLS] RFC 6066 - Max fragment length negotiat… Martin Thomson
- Re: [TLS] RFC 6066 - Max fragment length negotiat… Peter Gutmann
- Re: [TLS] RFC 6066 - Max fragment length negotiat… Thomas Pornin
- Re: [TLS] RFC 6066 - Max fragment length negotiat… Ilari Liusvaara
- Re: [TLS] RFC 6066 - Max fragment length negotiat… Ilari Liusvaara
- Re: [TLS] RFC 6066 - Max fragment length negotiat… Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [TLS] RFC 6066 - Max fragment length negotiat… Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [TLS] RFC 6066 - Max fragment length negotiat… Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [TLS] RFC 6066 - Max fragment length negotiat… Thomas Pornin
- Re: [TLS] RFC 6066 - Max fragment length negotiat… Ilari Liusvaara
- Re: [TLS] RFC 6066 - Max fragment length negotiat… Peter Gutmann
- Re: [TLS] RFC 6066 - Max fragment length negotiat… Peter Gutmann
- Re: [TLS] RFC 6066 - Max fragment length negotiat… Peter Gutmann
- Re: [TLS] RFC 6066 - Max fragment length negotiat… Joseph Birr-Pixton
- Re: [TLS] RFC 6066 - Max fragment length negotiat… Peter Gutmann
- Re: [TLS] RFC 6066 - Max fragment length negotiat… Joseph Birr-Pixton
- Re: [TLS] RFC 6066 - Max fragment length negotiat… Martin Thomson
- Re: [TLS] RFC 6066 - Max fragment length negotiat… Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [TLS] RFC 6066 - Max fragment length negotiat… Nitin Shrivastav
- Re: [TLS] RFC 6066 - Max fragment length negotiat… Sheehe, Charles J. (GRC-LCA0)
- Re: [TLS] RFC 6066 - Max fragment length negotiat… Thomas Pornin
- Re: [TLS] RFC 6066 - Max fragment length negotiat… Peter Gutmann
- Re: [TLS] RFC 6066 - Max fragment length negotiat… Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos
- Re: [TLS] RFC 6066 - Max fragment length negotiat… Hannes Tschofenig
- Re: [TLS] RFC 6066 - Max fragment length negotiat… Martin Thomson
- Re: [TLS] RFC 6066 - Max fragment length negotiat… Martin Thomson
- Re: [TLS] RFC 6066 - Max fragment length negotiat… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [TLS] RFC 6066 - Max fragment length negotiat… Martin Thomson
- Re: [TLS] RFC 6066 - Max fragment length negotiat… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [TLS] RFC 6066 - Max fragment length negotiat… Martin Thomson
- Re: [TLS] RFC 6066 - Max fragment length negotiat… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [TLS] RFC 6066 - Max fragment length negotiat… Peter Gutmann
- Re: [TLS] RFC 6066 - Max fragment length negotiat… Martin Rex
- Re: [TLS] RFC 6066 - Max fragment length negotiat… Peter Gutmann