Re: [TLS] RESOLVED (Re: [sasl] lasgt call comments (st Call: draft-altman-tls-channel-bindings (Channel Bindings for TLS) to Proposed Standard))

Nicolas Williams <> Wed, 04 November 2009 17:57 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D64C03A67B1; Wed, 4 Nov 2009 09:57:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.045
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.045 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.001, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 9Fx8eWbggz7d; Wed, 4 Nov 2009 09:57:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (sca-ea-mail-2.Sun.COM []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C354F3A67E5; Wed, 4 Nov 2009 09:57:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) by (8.13.7+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id nA4Hveva000731; Wed, 4 Nov 2009 17:57:52 GMT
Received: from binky.Central.Sun.COM (binky.Central.Sun.COM []) by (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id nA4HvdMV042877; Wed, 4 Nov 2009 10:57:39 -0700 (MST)
Received: from binky.Central.Sun.COM (localhost []) by binky.Central.Sun.COM (8.14.3+Sun/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nA4HkAkk008243; Wed, 4 Nov 2009 11:46:10 -0600 (CST)
Received: (from nw141292@localhost) by binky.Central.Sun.COM (8.14.3+Sun/8.14.3/Submit) id nA4Hk9oF008242; Wed, 4 Nov 2009 11:46:09 -0600 (CST)
X-Authentication-Warning: binky.Central.Sun.COM: nw141292 set sender to using -f
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 11:46:09 -0600
From: Nicolas Williams <>
Message-ID: <20091104174609.GW1105@Sun.COM>
References: <> <> <20091030223647.GO1105@Sun.COM> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.7i
Subject: Re: [TLS] RESOLVED (Re: [sasl] lasgt call comments (st Call: draft-altman-tls-channel-bindings (Channel Bindings for TLS) to Proposed Standard))
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." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:57:35 -0000

On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 03:28:35PM +0100, wrote:
> Nicolas Williams wrote:
> > I'm not sure that we can make it any clearer.
> In any case, I guess we agree that we're referring to the latest TLS
> handshake sent in clear (with TLS_NULL_WITH_NULL_NULL state)?

Yes (and before any ChangeCipherSpec messages).

> Could we somehow refer to this? Perhaps:
>   Note: We define a new "TLS connection" to start when the client
>   sends an unencrypted (TLS_NULL_WITH_NULL_NULL cipher suite) Client
>   Hello message (which can lead to either a full handshake, or
>   resuming a session). Renegotiation (sending a Client Hello protected
>   under some other cipher suite) does not start a new "TLS connection".  
>   Note that this is separate from any notion of "connection", if any, 
>   in the underlying transport protocol (such as TCP or UDP).

I like that.

> (Is this consistent with what the existing implementations do?)

It's consistent with the description that had been registered.  I don't
have an implementation, so I can't say as to existing implementations.
Jeff and/or Larry should know.