Re: [TLS] TLS document status update

[Nelson B Bolyard <nelson@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Pasi.Eronen@xxxxxxxxx wrote, On 2008-04-29 05:18:
> Here's a short status update on TLS WG documents:

> draft-ietf-tls-rfc4366-bis
>    
>    The only technical issue is whether (and how) to mandate
>    including the hash in certificate_url message. Everyone except
>    Nelson has supported making the hash mandatory.
> 
>    If I understand Nelson's view correctly, he considers the
>    original use case for omitting the hash (CA automatically posts
>    renewed certificates at certain URL, and the client does not
>    necessarily have a copy of the latest cert) more important than
>    the (rather theoretical) attacks that omitting the hash might
>    have. Nelson, would this be a fair summary of your objection?  

Yes.  The client doesn't necessarily have ANY copy of its own cert.
The proposed requirement that the client MUST include a hash of the
cert it does not have presents a new problem for such implementations.

White-listing of hosts from which the server is willing to fetch those
client cert URLs effectively solves the other problems without
necessitating any mandatory hashes.

Thanks for your document status summary.

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