[TLS] draft-ietf-tls-extractor-03
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[TLS] draft-ietf-tls-extractor-03



Eric,
I have followed up and reviewed the most recent version of your
TLS Extrcator I-D, draft-ietf-tls-extractor-03.

Although sent (off-list) almost three weeks before the -03
version has been posted, my (mostly editorial) comments on
the -02 version have not been addressed in the -03.  Please
give me an indication should that message have been lost.

All issues raised in that message still hold, and one additional
technical issue has been introduced in the -03 version -- see below.

To recall, the only non-editorial issue raised in that message was:

> (6)  Section 6
>
> I do not understand why the third line appears in the table in
> Section 6.  The string "master secret" is used in TLS to derive
> the master_secret from the pre_master_secret using the TLS PRF
> (Section 8.1 / page 64 of RFC 5246), and not to derive anything
> else from the master_secret as specified by the method in Section 4.
> [ Beware that the other three string values originated in RFC 4346
>   that have been included in the table are indeed used in TLS with
>   the master_secret as the first argument to the TLS PRF. ]
>
> Admittedly, it would perhaps be confusing to see such use,
> but I do not see a cryptographical argument making it necessary
> to avoid this use, and hence enter this string into the registry.

Additional remark:
  I you indeed want to keep the string "master secret" in the
  registry, I suggest to *not* give [RFC5346] as a reference
  (which I regard as misleading), but instead declare it as
  "reserved by RFC{this}", or change the reference to [RFC{this}]
  and attach a footnote to the registry, indicating that this
  entry is a reservation only, not documentation of actual use.


And that's the new issue:

In Section 4, the line

           opaque context<0..2^16-1>;

has been added, which unfortunately does not match the description
of the computation given in the initial part of that section.
IMHO, for consistency, the above line should read:

           opaque context_value<0..2^16-1>;
                         ^^^^^^

Kind regards,
  Alfred.

-- 

+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes   |  Alfred Hoenes   Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys.  |
| Gerlinger Strasse 12   |  Phone: (+49)7156/9635-0, Fax: -18         |
| D-71254  Ditzingen     |  E-Mail:  ah at TR-Sys.de                     |
+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+

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



Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.