Subject: [xmpp] #22: interaction between idle streams and security layers

From: "xmpp issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 20:54:40 -0000

#22: interaction between idle streams and security layers
--------------------------------+-------------------------------------------
 Reporter:  stpeter@…           |       Owner:  stpeter@…         
     Type:  defect              |      Status:  new               
 Priority:  minor               |   Milestone:                    
Component:  3920bis             |     Version:                    
 Severity:  In WG Last Call     |    Keywords:                    
--------------------------------+-------------------------------------------
 Regarding Section 4.3.3 (Handling of Idle Streams), Paul Aurich commented:

 "Should this text also make reference to security layers (i.e. TLS)?  I
 know of at least one person who was trying to send U+0020 characters via a
 socket that was actually associated with a TLS channel and was confused as
 to why the other end was generating a TLS Fatal Alert."

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/xmpp/trac/ticket/22>
xmpp <http://tools.ietf.org/xmpp/>

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2010 20:53:41 -0600

> #22: interaction between idle streams and security layers

Paul, is your question addressed by the new bullet-point in Section
5.3.3.1 (TLS negotiation rules)?

   6.  Following successful TLS negotiation, all further data
       transmitted by either party MUST be encrypted.

Or does this apply more generally to any security layers (e.g., those
negotiated via SASL instead of TLS)?

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: "xmpp issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 02:55:06 -0000

#22: interaction between idle streams and security layers
--------------------------------+-------------------------------------------
 Reporter:  stpeter@…           |        Owner:  stpeter@…         
     Type:  defect              |       Status:  closed            
 Priority:  minor               |    Milestone:                    
Component:  3920bis             |      Version:                    
 Severity:  In WG Last Call     |   Resolution:  fixed             
 Keywords:                      |  
--------------------------------+-------------------------------------------
Changes (by stpeter@…):

  * status:  new => closed
  * resolution:  => fixed

Comment:

 Provisionally resolved with new bullet-point in Section 5.3.3.1:

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/xmpp/trac/ticket/22#comment:1>
xmpp <http://tools.ietf.org/xmpp/>

---

From: Paul Aurich <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 09:42:52 -0700

> negotiated via SASL instead of TLS)?

The point in the TLS negotiation rules does address it, although it's
certainly a possible issue with SASL too.  The keepalive section still
talks about "send[ing] a space character over the TCP connection between
XML stanzas".  Would it be possible to just elide "over the TCP
connection" (or replace it with "over the stream" possibly)?

~Paul

---

From: Peter Saint-Andre <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 15:24:26 -0600

> connection" (or replace it with "over the stream" possibly)?

I'd be fine with "within the stream" (I think of the stream as something
that passes over the TCP connection) or simply "send[ing] a space
character between XML stanzas" (IMHO that's best).

Peter

-- 
Peter Saint-Andre
https://stpeter.im/

---

From: Paul Aurich <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 14:45:45 -0700

On 2010-06-25 14:24, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
> "send[ing] a space character between XML stanzas" (IMHO that's best).

WFM

~Paul