Subject: [TLS] Review of tls-ticket-04

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 17:01:45 +0300

1) Disclaimer: I'm also one of the co-authors.

2) Overall impression

Editorial: The document is really short (which is IMHO good) and 
quite easy to read.

Technical: The proposal is pretty much equivalent to the "client-side
session caching" proposal by Shacham, Boneh and Rescorla. Their paper
contains a good and convincing explanation why this works, so I
believe this is OK from technical point of view.

3) As Nelson already mentioned, the interaction of this extension and
normal session resumption needs to be clarified (i.e., what exactly
does the normal SessionID field contain); see my separate email about
that.

4) Purely editorial suggestions:

Abstract: suggest deleting the last sentence (unnecessary detail and
doesn't seem to belong in the abstract)

Section 1: "defines a new TLS message type" --> "defines a new TLS
handshake message"

Section 4: "Other authentication mechanism such as Kerberos [RFC2712]
or pre-shared keys [I-D.ietf-tls-psk] would require different client
identity data." --> "Other authentication mechanism such as Kerberos
[RFC2712] would require different client identity data" (the example
does cover TLS-PSK)

Section 4: Possibly provide informative references 

   [AES] National Institute of Standards and Technology,
   "Advanced Encryption Standard (AES)", Federal Information
   Processing Standards (FIPS) Publication 197, November 2001.

   [CBC] National Institute of Standards and Technology,
   "Recommendation for Block Cipher Modes of Operation - Methods
   and Techniques", NIST Special Publication 800-38A, December
   2001.

   [RFC2104] Krawczyk, H., Bellare, M., and R. Canetti, "HMAC:
   Keyed- Hashing for Message Authentication," RFC 2104, February
   1997.

   [SHA1] National Institute of Standards and Technology, "Secure
   Hash Standard (SHS)", Federal Information Processing Standards
   (FIPS) Publication 180-2, August 2002.

Section 6: Given that the mechanism in this draft is almost identical
to [CSSC], I'd suggest mentioning that one first.

Section 8.2: Change [CSSC] to more accurate reference

   [CSSC]     Shacham, H., Boneh, D., and E. Rescorla, "Client-side
              caching for TLS", ACM Transactions on Information and 
              System Security (TISSEC), Volume 7, Issue 4, November 
              2004.

(and maybe change [CSSC] to [CSC])

Best regards,
Pasi

_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls