IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] Consensus Call on draft-ietf-tls-dnssec-chain-extension

Willem Toorop <willem@nlnetlabs.nl> Thu, 12 April 2018 22:44 UTC

Return-Path: <willem@nlnetlabs.nl>
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 CED0A12422F for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 15:44:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -7.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=nlnetlabs.nl
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 bzAKnkh3t9mc for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 15:44:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dicht.nlnetlabs.nl (open.nlnetlabs.nl [IPv6:2a04:b900::1:0:0:10]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B2801200A0 for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Apr 2018 15:44:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.141] (happus.xs4all.nl [82.95.141.127]) by dicht.nlnetlabs.nl (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 14610D352 for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 Apr 2018 00:44:22 +0200 (CEST)
Authentication-Results: dicht.nlnetlabs.nl; dmarc=none header.from=nlnetlabs.nl
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=nlnetlabs.nl; s=default; t=1523573062; bh=E5gOpQdmHhqNCln/bkk6Jpz2GupjYOKm78Mvu7BBJog=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To; b=p8rEchKTYgSQ4E4Incrr9qoV6wHhbY1QH3jCVbEwZLL2VE375Aiv9+J1MMseGGgr6 RI7JEJ182tvartVfGzJ3b/YP7B6UMNKyeQE66Jw5ux/IEnWCdJXuQS2ne5sFZm51qm 7xEX1RoDfu5uWi0D6JopILte/SHEoMX0yivFdYD4=
To: tls@ietf.org
References: <CAOgPGoAhzEtxpW5mzmkf2kv3AcugNy0dAzhvpaqrTSuMSqWqfw@mail.gmail.com> <CAHPuVdXfVQ5ZYL+dTvFeTfOaz2NNPrqxvnWuqJkxu0aaKDF_Sg@mail.gmail.com> <20180410235321.GR25259@localhost> <20180411173348.GP17433@akamai.com> <alpine.LRH.2.21.1804120438460.24369@bofh.nohats.ca> <CAL02cgSuTOaT_NwnpXaa8DPhNJhzqZwepRL+J29BzcBfCTDtHw@mail.gmail.com> <CAHbuEH78KNyk8fnHThRkCERKPjZzYppi1uhkDx6kL_t448q0_g@mail.gmail.com> <20180412175441.GD20782@akamai.com> <6db83a59-1f0f-f552-0d48-6e2a8d43f602@nomountain.net> <CABkgnnUwOjkY1_KejV-YOw3YRqjFfzaYurEY1OpZ8phQVhcWLg@mail.gmail.com> <114FE78D-F340-4752-BEF0-459FE1548A80@dukhovni.org>
From: Willem Toorop <willem@nlnetlabs.nl>
Message-ID: <aa7ca33a-4acd-c770-a43c-df7a1f66c782@nlnetlabs.nl>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2018 00:44:21 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <114FE78D-F340-4752-BEF0-459FE1548A80@dukhovni.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/z9V7ZFvBuXO9rx0ScDySuISww-Q>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Consensus Call on draft-ietf-tls-dnssec-chain-extension
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: Thu, 12 Apr 2018 22:44:26 -0000

Op 13-04-18 om 00:09 schreef Viktor Dukhovni:
> The protocol as described prohibits denial of existence responses.  Willem
> acknowledged (thus far in an off-list message) that that's an oversight that
> should be corrected, and such a correction is the substance of option (A).

Well... I find it unfortunate that the line you were quoting from
section 3.4 could be interpreted as prohibiting the possibility of
denial of existence.  So I am open to relaxing that text so that it can
not be interpreted as such anymore yes.

v2.14.0 | Report a Bug | By Email