[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ietf
Subject:    Re: [TLS] secdir review of draft-ietf-tls-ecdhe-psk-aead-03
From:       Daniel Migault <daniel.migault () ericsson ! com>
Date:       2017-05-23 22:04:55
Message-ID: CADZyTkn1etMeM4BZ5MYPm4VR-YiFH_yvjNQ6TZEwChrJzvHQUg () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Thank you for the clarifying text. I have added it on my local copy.
Yours,
Daniel

On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 1:35 PM, Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> wrote:

> Sorry for the slow reply.
>
> On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 12:58:07PM -0400, Daniel Migault wrote:
> > Thank you,
> >
> > Your comments have all been addressed. I have one remaining
> clarification.
> > In my text the SHOULD NOT was intended to the ECDHE_PSK in general, and
> not
> > only for the cipher suites of the draft. In your opinion do we clarify
> > this, and should we use something else than SHOULD NOT ?
>
> It's somewhat awkward, as what we really want to do is Update RFC
> 5489 to add this prohibition there.  But, that's more process to
> jump through and this document is already at a late stage, so I do
> not actually propose doing that.  I would be okay saying
>
>   As such, all ECDHE_PSK ciphers, including those defined outside
>   this document, SHOULD NOT be negotiated in TLS versions prior to
>   1.2.
>
> to match up with the MUST NOT text we have for these new ciphers.
> (Taking into account Martin's text that the prohibition is on
> negotiating them, but offering them in a ClientHello that also
> offers the old version is okay.)
>
> -Ben
>

[Attachment #3 (text/html)]

<div dir="ltr"><div><div>Thank you for the clarifying text. I have added it on my \
local copy. <br></div>Yours, <br></div>Daniel<br></div><div \
class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 1:35 PM, \
Benjamin Kaduk <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:kaduk@mit.edu" \
target="_blank">kaduk@mit.edu</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote \
class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc \
solid;padding-left:1ex">Sorry for the slow reply.<br> <span class=""><br>
On Fri, May 19, 2017 at 12:58:07PM -0400, Daniel Migault wrote:<br>
&gt; Thank you,<br>
&gt;<br>
&gt; Your comments have all been addressed. I have one remaining clarification.<br>
&gt; In my text the SHOULD NOT was intended to the ECDHE_PSK in general, and not<br>
&gt; only for the cipher suites of the draft. In your opinion do we clarify<br>
&gt; this, and should we use something else than SHOULD NOT ?<br>
<br>
</span>It&#39;s somewhat awkward, as what we really want to do is Update RFC<br>
5489 to add this prohibition there.   But, that&#39;s more process to<br>
jump through and this document is already at a late stage, so I do<br>
not actually propose doing that.   I would be okay saying<br>
<br>
   As such, all ECDHE_PSK ciphers, including those defined outside<br>
   this document, SHOULD NOT be negotiated in TLS versions prior to<br>
   1.2.<br>
<br>
to match up with the MUST NOT text we have for these new ciphers.<br>
(Taking into account Martin&#39;s text that the prohibition is on<br>
negotiating them, but offering them in a ClientHello that also<br>
offers the old version is okay.)<br>
<br>
-Ben<br>
</blockquote></div><br></div>



[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]