IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] The consensus is half-mistaken (Re: Confirming consensus for ALPN)

Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> Fri, 15 March 2013 23:11 UTC

Return-Path: <nico@cryptonector.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 EBB6311E80FC for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 16:11:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.827
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.827 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.150, BAYES_00=-2.599, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id w9At6mdRrYVR for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 16:11:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a16.g.dreamhost.com (caiajhbdcbbj.dreamhost.com [208.97.132.119]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7F75311E80FB for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 16:11:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from homiemail-a16.g.dreamhost.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by homiemail-a16.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F78350808C for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 16:11:23 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=cryptonector.com; h= mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from :to:cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s= cryptonector.com; bh=Kawt0ykZNlTGEBN1U7nu6dvobb4=; b=dVNw1JzHghG FUtMziwL5TYfTFASBo9fZyWufA5IY+NScFlLBgmZ+GRmpr6Mg740kUXrsZOjwvrL MmbjpnwMkSmQzdm+gVnjP/YpOU01Xh2sczNR3nh6rXyxpkzgtSlv7GyRUvGuZNzo gi97oIOn6498xXXavKz5RDKZ43h0EnHo=
Received: from mail-we0-f182.google.com (mail-we0-f182.google.com [74.125.82.182]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: nico@cryptonector.com) by homiemail-a16.g.dreamhost.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id EDF64508072 for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 16:11:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-we0-f182.google.com with SMTP id t57so3732383wey.27 for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 16:11:21 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.194.119.68 with SMTP id ks4mr14020825wjb.3.1363389081727; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 16:11:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.216.113.68 with HTTP; Fri, 15 Mar 2013 16:11:21 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <7F4E2211-C738-443C-8EEF-1C07B28926CB@iki.fi>
References: <CAK3OfOi7sB=bPQXy-PmZgRvPR3N1amaZhn5EXyFHy4CzbmgbaA@mail.gmail.com> <7F4E2211-C738-443C-8EEF-1C07B28926CB@iki.fi>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 18:11:21 -0500
Message-ID: <CAK3OfOhUZ3md+byoxtJOoxBPwKy5rdPAC9=rdXybSUQhs17ihA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
To: Juho Vähä-Herttua <juhovh@iki.fi>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [TLS] The consensus is half-mistaken (Re: Confirming consensus for ALPN)
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: <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: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 23:11:28 -0000

On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 5:54 PM, Juho Vähä-Herttua <juhovh@iki.fi> wrote:
> On 15.3.2013, at 23.59, Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com> wrote:
>> I do believe NPN is too
>> complex, and in that sense the consensus for ALPN is correct.
>>
>> Can we find a middle of the road?
>>
>> My compromise proposal is based on providing privacy protection for
>> the record type in TLS (post-CCS, of course) -- a feature that should
>> be desirable anyways and separately
>
> I'm sorry to point this out, but I think your proposal is actually much more complex to implement than the NPN proposal. No other extension that I can think of have changed the data record format, and mixing data records with handshake packets would need a rather big refactoring at least in my implementation.

There'd not be any refactoring: there'd still be a record type, just protected.

Nico
--

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email