Subject: [TLS] Alvaro Retana's No Objection on draft-ietf-tls-padding-02: (with COMMENT)

From: "Alvaro Retana" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 01 Sep 2015 09:10:00 -0700

Alvaro Retana has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tls-padding-02: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-padding/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

As Alissa, I was wondering why it wasn’t easier to fix the one
implementation instead.  

The shepherd wrote: "Since then it has been found that this extension can
server (sic) to alleviate issues with issues in several vendor's
products.  There was good consensus to move forward with this document as
it may find further applicability in the future.”  So it looks like the
problem is not just one implementation…

If the WG now thinks that this extension may be valuable for other things
besides fixing bugs, then it might be nice to reword some of the document
to not focus on what seems to be one bug and just present the extension
for what it is: padding.

---

From: Eric Rescorla <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 2015 09:49:06 -0700

> As Alissa, I was wondering why it wasn’t easier to fix the one
Because it's widely fielded, and browsers don't know in advance what
kind of server they are talking to.

> problem is not just one implementation…

There's another potential future application for DTLS to allow the client
to pad out the ClientHello to MTU size (or rather for the server to insist
on it) thus reducing the risk of amplification.

-Ekr

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

---

From: Sean Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 2015 10:16:05 -0400

> kind of server they are talking to.

The one thing I’ll add in addition to what’s in the msg to Alissa is that the time from Brian raising an issue to having testable patches to fix the issue was about two days.  And, this all happened back at the end of ’13; what can I say the wheels of standardization move slowly while fixing an issue that might affect a noticeable swath of the Internet moves a little faster.

spt