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

List:       ietf-tls
Subject:    Re: [TLS] Inconsistent extension definitions
From:       Eric Rescorla <ekr () rtfm ! com>
Date:       2019-06-24 17:52:23
Message-ID: CABcZeBPROMHxPoUBak1sBWHbv0JG2qZfcC-hxm8JUqBPjPrRjg () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

[Attachment #2 (multipart/alternative)]


On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 7:51 PM Yishuai Li <yishuai@upenn.edu> wrote:

> Dear TLS working group,
>
> Here's a duplicate of GitHub issue tlswg/tls13-rfc#21 I opened today,
> which somehow disappeared:
>

I closed it. The RFC has been published, so filing issues on that repo
isn't useful.


Supported Versions are defined as Variants:
>
>     struct {
>         select (Handshake.msg_type) {
>             case client_hello:
>                  ProtocolVersion versions<2..254>;
>
>             case server_hello: /* and HelloRetryRequest */
>                  ProtocolVersion selected_version;
>         };
>     } SupportedVersions;
>
> while Key Share is defined as separate Constructed Types:
>
>     struct {
>         KeyShareEntry client_shares<0..2^16-1>;
>     } KeyShareClientHello;
>
>     struct {
>         NamedGroup selected_group;
>     } KeyShareHelloRetryRequest;
>
>     struct {
>         KeyShareEntry server_share;
>     } KeyShareServerHello;
>
> Is there a specific reason for choosing different definition styles?
>

I'm not aware of any specific reason. I think it's just an inconsistency,
perhaps due to aesthetics.

The protocol is the same eithere way.


Is it worth unifying them?
>

Probably not. It's editorial and there is no real mechanism for doing that,
given that the RFC has been published.

-Ekr





> Also, is this mailing list the right place for such questions?
>
> Thanks,
> Yishuai Li
>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> TLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>

[Attachment #5 (text/html)]

<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" \
class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 7:51 PM Yishuai Li &lt;<a \
href="mailto:yishuai@upenn.edu">yishuai@upenn.edu</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote \
class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid \
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Dear TLS working group,<br> <br>
Here's a duplicate of GitHub issue tlswg/tls13-rfc#21 I opened today,<br>
which somehow disappeared:<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I closed it. The RFC \
has been published, so filing issues on that repo isn&#39;t \
useful..</div><div><br></div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" \
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid \
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> Supported Versions are defined as Variants:<br>
<br>
      struct {<br>
            select (Handshake.msg_type) {<br>
                  case client_hello:<br>
                          ProtocolVersion versions&lt;2..254&gt;;<br>
<br>
                  case server_hello: /* and HelloRetryRequest */<br>
                          ProtocolVersion selected_version;<br>
            };<br>
      } SupportedVersions;<br>
<br>
while Key Share is defined as separate Constructed Types:<br>
<br>
      struct {<br>
            KeyShareEntry client_shares&lt;0..2^16-1&gt;;<br>
      } KeyShareClientHello;<br>
<br>
      struct {<br>
            NamedGroup selected_group;<br>
      } KeyShareHelloRetryRequest;<br>
<br>
      struct {<br>
            KeyShareEntry server_share;<br>
      } KeyShareServerHello;<br>
<br>
Is there a specific reason for choosing different definition \
styles?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I&#39;m not aware of any specific reason. \
I think it&#39;s just an inconsistency, perhaps due to \
aesthetics.</div><div><br></div><div>The protocol is the same eithere \
way.</div><div><br></div><div> <br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" \
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid \
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> Is it worth unifying \
them?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Probably not.. It&#39;s editorial and there \
is no real mechanism for doing that, given that the RFC has been \
published.</div><div><br></div><div>-Ekr</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><blockquote \
class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid \
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> <br>
Also, is this mailing list the right place for such questions?<br>
<br>
Thanks,<br>
Yishuai Li<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
TLS mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:TLS@ietf.org" target="_blank">TLS@ietf.org</a><br>
<a href="https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls" rel="noreferrer" \
target="_blank">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls</a><br> \
</blockquote></div></div>



_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls


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