Re: [TLS] WGLC for draft-ietf-tls-cross-sni-resumption

David Benjamin <> Mon, 19 July 2021 21:14 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A75383A0A16 for <>; Mon, 19 Jul 2021 14:14:20 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.949
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.949 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.452, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xrPBRUOZHsqJ for <>; Mon, 19 Jul 2021 14:14:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::52c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A09C3A0A06 for <>; Mon, 19 Jul 2021 14:14:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id u14so20464663pga.11 for <>; Mon, 19 Jul 2021 14:14:15 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=rPyzURtgZg4zdFyHbS+so9P5wI/8tEbGPzKwmCZgxko=; b=G2wHEVpOtwfVDsouezRiIdn3k4rNms28I/VvkGe4LBfB612L+OlA6VIANTMeckL1ye f0ih1R6DgqejhGqINOaplTscRH+OchlevFV83AyQ+3T0k6TfdJ9aNruw0FCmeuVYTNAZ ounpsGE86PShEruyF/nnCU8HpSitmkQerMmPQ=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=rPyzURtgZg4zdFyHbS+so9P5wI/8tEbGPzKwmCZgxko=; b=R/JceHJKhaCn4VHZY/dx7QHcHet88GJQrOrqq8qB84eCqgKYlQbs3Ky5AEHC9gJQ5n m09HTDp3CLkUTIYKkTDBKHKG1Dg4en3/tctOXNIw46x3NNbMAN4LLFerUgi595ukhZO0 6D1N8OIBZ/7Z9hHwxlVMurMmKoDd2IdgdctFEKlYSXPo9Ww9kmXiMDJ8kzikoxd8WpP1 BQ6GvayE8Dzjb87ixTZdyKvL0Lqh2s2csFXL2Oges8CFGiLhRbM4b4Pib6bQ+NFKhJ4x 4cPXf6amWp1Ob6UbJtG7NfjeQsI0mXaCXAHBA1AirrT+weQ7ch82/TGGsqbmW71yxDT3 T/lA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5338hUOfeX6eSdYth9OCvMWsBv1ST2/m8e+iXuEGv/UawzdoDGT+ cYG3akzp32tFGiZ+oxgCdH94I7YPujTAma2+UKSh
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxzXHp9b/ARNs9Vto5YuRymE4HtGnupJCVREQAsAGzNhoiNtmRh5z4D8682G/8p5H+T/4AJcUloME2O0wPxsZA=
X-Received: by 2002:a63:e303:: with SMTP id f3mr27742012pgh.182.1626729253317; Mon, 19 Jul 2021 14:14:13 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: David Benjamin <>
Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2021 17:13:57 -0400
Message-ID: <>
To: Stephen Farrell <>
Cc: Ryan Sleevi <>, "Salz, Rich" <>, "" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004a94c105c7806bbe"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [TLS] WGLC for draft-ietf-tls-cross-sni-resumption
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Mon, 19 Jul 2021 21:14:21 -0000

On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 4:20 PM Stephen Farrell <>

> Hiya,
> On 19/07/2021 17:50, David Benjamin wrote:
> > Do you have other text in mind? There doesn't seem to be any other
> possible
> > answer here, since there is only one decision to make in resumption.
> There is a 3rd option: don't standardise the flag. That'd be
> my preference, but as I said maybe I'm in the rough in not
> preferring more optimisation at the cost of the additional
> privacy concern.
> Other than that I don't have better wording to offer at the
> moment that I think would really help sorry. Maybe if others
> chime in something'll become more apparent.

I don't think that's an accurate characterization of what's going on. I at
least care about both optimization and privacy. We should apply
optimizations only where they do not result in a privacy issue, and we
should not apply optimizations that result in a privacy issue. That means
taking the time to understand a system's privacy goals and how mechanisms
interact with them.

Even ignoring this document, rfc8446 *already* fails this test. By
omission, it implies applications needn't match up their privacy goals with
TLS resumption. This is false and indeed that results in a tracking vector
on the Web, and any other application where multiple contexts talk to the
same domain. That means this 3rd option does not replace the need for text.
We need to either find wording we're happy with, or remove resumption

I've proposed some text for rfc8446bis. I think it captures the right
criteria: you may only resume if you were okay correlating the first and
second connections. If you think something is missing, I think that is
useful feedback. Given how widespread resumption is, it's important that we
fully understand the implications.

>From there, we can look at this document. Observe that the rule applies
equally well here. Moreover, on the Web, even after you apply the rule,
there is still a space where the optimization is useful. This is great. It
means we can both avoid a privacy issue *and* make things faster. Even
better, the optimizations apply to XSS privsep schemes (subdomains within a
site), so there is an indirect security benefit. Other applications may
look different (no subresource-like construct, different correlation
boundaries), such that the optimization is not useful, but that's still
fine. The overall rule simply turns the flag into a no-op.