Skip to main content

Additional Master Secret Inputs for TLS
draft-hoffman-tls-master-secret-input-03

Revision differences

Document history

Date Rev. By Action
2012-08-22
03 (System) post-migration administrative database adjustment to the Yes position for Jari Arkko
2010-07-19
03 Cindy Morgan State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Cindy Morgan
2010-07-19
03 (System) IANA Action state changed to No IC from In Progress
2010-07-19
03 (System) IANA Action state changed to In Progress
2010-07-19
03 Cindy Morgan IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent
2010-07-19
03 Cindy Morgan IESG has approved the document
2010-07-19
03 Cindy Morgan Closed "Approve" ballot
2010-07-17
03 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] Position for Jari Arkko has been changed to Yes from Discuss by Jari Arkko
2010-07-08
03 (System) New version available: draft-hoffman-tls-master-secret-input-03.txt
2010-07-08
03 Robert Sparks
[Ballot comment]
The Intended Status line in the draft still says Standards Track. Suggest at least adding an RFC Editor note to help avoid confusion …
[Ballot comment]
The Intended Status line in the draft still says Standards Track. Suggest at least adding an RFC Editor note to help avoid confusion later in the process.
2010-07-08
03 Robert Sparks [Ballot discuss]
2010-07-08
03 Robert Sparks [Ballot Position Update] Position for Robert Sparks has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Robert Sparks
2010-07-08
03 (System) Sub state has been changed to AD Follow up from New Id Needed
2010-07-08
02 (System) New version available: draft-hoffman-tls-master-secret-input-02.txt
2010-07-02
03 (System) Removed from agenda for telechat - 2010-07-01
2010-07-01
03 Cindy Morgan State Changes to IESG Evaluation::Revised ID Needed from IESG Evaluation by Cindy Morgan
2010-07-01
03 Russ Housley
[Ballot comment]
The Gen-ART Review by Dorothy Gellert on 30-June-2010 call for two
  changes.  I think they should both be addressed, but neither is …
[Ballot comment]
The Gen-ART Review by Dorothy Gellert on 30-June-2010 call for two
  changes.  I think they should both be addressed, but neither is
  worth blocking publication as an Experimental RFC.
  >
  > Section 2, paragraph 2 duplicates the last paragraph in the
  > Introduction.
  >
  > Is it possible to provide an example of an extension with master
  > secret?  Can you explain why the extension order is important?
  > Is this a security issue, if extension order is not maintained?
2010-07-01
03 Russ Housley [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Russ Housley
2010-07-01
03 Jari Arkko
[Ballot discuss]
The document says:

  Extensions that specify data to be added to the master secret are
  called "extensions with master secret input".  …
[Ballot discuss]
The document says:

  Extensions that specify data to be added to the master secret are
  called "extensions with master secret input".  ...
  ...  That is, every extension that does not call itself an
  extension with master secret input is treated just like a normal
  extension.

but says nothing about how the peers can determine what extensions are
"extensions with master secret input". How do you do that, and how does this work with unsupported extensions? I think the idea is that in TLS both sides TLS both sides eventually know what extensions were supported by the peer. So, if the peer does not support my proposed extension then I will either not add the input relating to my proposed extension to the master secret, or I will abort the connection. Shouldn't some of this be described in the document? Or maybe its obvious to all the TLS experts. I'm not one, and its not obvious to me...

Also, I guess the idea is that an implementation of an extension knows that it is an extension with master secret input, right? You are not presuming any flags, extension code value ranges, or machine-readable registries to determine this?
2010-07-01
03 Jari Arkko [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Jari Arkko
2010-06-30
03 Robert Sparks
[Ballot discuss]
The Updates: line needs adjusting (probably both documents should be removed). An experimental document shouldn't be updating a PS document and the other …
[Ballot discuss]
The Updates: line needs adjusting (probably both documents should be removed). An experimental document shouldn't be updating a PS document and the other document mentioned is still a work in progress.
2010-06-30
03 Robert Sparks [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded by Robert Sparks
2010-06-30
03 Dan Romascanu [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Dan Romascanu
2010-06-30
03 Stewart Bryant [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Stewart Bryant
2010-06-30
03 Gonzalo Camarillo [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Gonzalo Camarillo
2010-06-30
03 Adrian Farrel [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Adrian Farrel
2010-06-30
03 Lars Eggert [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Lars Eggert
2010-06-28
03 Peter Saint-Andre
[Ballot comment]
Nothing in the document indicates that this extension will improve the security profile of TLS/DTLS, only that it is meeting the requirements of …
[Ballot comment]
Nothing in the document indicates that this extension will improve the security profile of TLS/DTLS, only that it is meeting the requirements of some unnamed implementers who "want to mix particular data into the calculation of the master_secret". Some text about this might help to motivate the specification.
2010-06-28
03 Peter Saint-Andre [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Peter Saint-Andre
2010-06-25
03 Tim Polk [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded by Tim Polk
2010-06-22
03 Sean Turner Intended Status has been changed to Experimental from Proposed Standard
2010-06-19
03 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot comment]
I hope there are already cases of extensions that would like to define additional master secret inputs.
2010-06-19
03 Alexey Melnikov [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded by Alexey Melnikov
2010-06-15
03 Sean Turner Area acronymn has been changed to sec from gen
2010-06-07
03 Sean Turner Placed on agenda for telechat - 2010-07-01 by Sean Turner
2010-06-07
03 Sean Turner State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Sean Turner
2010-06-07
03 Sean Turner [Note]: 'There is no document shepherd.' added by Sean Turner
2010-06-07
03 Sean Turner [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Sean Turner
2010-06-07
03 Sean Turner Ballot has been issued by Sean Turner
2010-06-07
03 Sean Turner Created "Approve" ballot
2010-05-19
03 (System) State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system
2010-05-07
03 Amanda Baber IANA comments:

As described in the IANA Considerations section, we understand this
document to have NO IANA Actions.
2010-04-27
03 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR Completed. Reviewer: Yaron Sheffer.
2010-04-25
03 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Yaron Sheffer
2010-04-25
03 Samuel Weiler Request for Last Call review by SECDIR is assigned to Yaron Sheffer
2010-04-21
03 Amy Vezza Last call sent
2010-04-21
03 Amy Vezza State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza
2010-04-21
03 Sean Turner State Changes to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested by Sean Turner
2010-04-21
03 Sean Turner Last Call was requested by Sean Turner
2010-04-21
03 (System) Ballot writeup text was added
2010-04-21
03 (System) Last call text was added
2010-04-21
03 (System) Ballot approval text was added
2010-04-21
03 Amy Vezza
-----------

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does …
-----------

(1.a) Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Has the
Document Shepherd personally reviewed this version of the
document and, in particular, does he or she believe this
version is ready for forwarding to the IESG for publication?

This is an individual submission, so there is no shepherd. As author of
this document, I believe that this version is ready for publication.

(1.b) Has the document had adequate review both from key WG members
and from key non-WG members? Does the Document Shepherd have
any concerns about the depth or breadth of the reviews that
have been performed?

The -00 and -01 drafts were announced to the TLS WG. The -00 draft
received a lot of input which was reflected in the -01; there were no
significant comments on the -01.

(1.c) Does the Document Shepherd have concerns that the document
needs more review from a particular or broader perspective,
e.g., security, operational complexity, someone familiar with
AAA, internationalization or XML?

No concerns.

(1.d) Does the Document Shepherd have any specific concerns or
issues with this document that the Responsible Area Director
and/or the IESG should be aware of? For example, perhaps he
or she is uncomfortable with certain parts of the document, or
has concerns whether there really is a need for it. In any
event, if the WG has discussed those issues and has indicated
that it still wishes to advance the document, detail those
concerns here. Has an IPR disclosure related to this document
been filed? If so, please include a reference to the
disclosure and summarize the WG discussion and conclusion on
this issue.

No concerns.

(1.e) How solid is the WG consensus behind this document? Does it
represent the strong concurrence of a few individuals, with
others being silent, or does the WG as a whole understand and
agree with it?

This was not a WG document. The proposal did receive support from a few
WG participants.

(1.f) Has anyone threatened an appeal or otherwise indicated extreme
discontent? If so, please summarise the areas of conflict in
separate email messages to the Responsible Area Director. (It
should be in a separate email because this questionnaire is
entered into the ID Tracker.)

No appeal threatened.

(1.g) Has the Document Shepherd personally verified that the
document satisfies all ID nits? (See the Internet-Drafts Checklist
and http://tools.ietf.org/tools/idnits/). Boilerplate checks are
not enough; this check needs to be thorough. Has the document
met all formal review criteria it needs to, such as the MIB
Doctor, media type and URI type reviews?

It currently fails ID nits because one draft in the references,
draft-ietf-tls-rfc4347-bis, has just expired; I have nudged the authors
of that draft to revive it and move it forwards. There are no MIBs,
media types, or URIs defined in the document.

(1.h) Has the document split its references into normative and
informative? Are there normative references to documents that
are not ready for advancement or are otherwise in an unclear
state? If such normative references exist, what is the
strategy for their completion? Are there normative references
that are downward references, as described in [RFC3967]? If
so, list these downward references to support the Area
Director in the Last Call procedure for them [RFC3967].

There is a normative reference to draft-ietf-tls-rfc4347-bis, which is
not moving forwards quickly, but one author (Eric Rescorla) tells me
that it will move forwards on standards track.

(1.i) Has the Document Shepherd verified that the document IANA
consideration section exists and is consistent with the body
of the document? If the document specifies protocol
extensions, are reservations requested in appropriate IANA
registries? Are the IANA registries clearly identified? If
the document creates a new registry, does it define the
proposed initial contents of the registry and an allocation
procedure for future registrations? Does it suggest a
reasonable name for the new registry? See [RFC5226]. If the
document describes an Expert Review process has Shepherd
conferred with the Responsible Area Director so that the IESG
can appoint the needed Expert during the IESG Evaluation?

I believe that the IANA Considerations section is clear.

(1.j) Has the Document Shepherd verified that sections of the
document that are written in a formal language, such as XML
code, BNF rules, MIB definitions, etc., validate correctly in
an automated checker?

None of the material use a formal language (the TLS spec is far from
formal). The TLS language was reviewed by many TLS implementers.

(1.k) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document
Announcement Write-Up. Please provide such a Document
Announcement Write-Up? Recent examples can be found in the
"Action" announcements for approved documents. The approval
announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary
This document describes a mechanism for using additional master
secret inputs with Transport Layer Security (TLS) and Datagram TLS
(DTLS).

Working Group Summary
This is not a WG document. However, both drafts were discussed in the
TLS WG.

Document Quality
There are no known implementations of this document, which makes sense
because it has not been approved by the IETF. A few implementers have
indicted that they would implement it.
2010-04-21
03 Amy Vezza Draft Added by Amy Vezza in state Publication Requested
2010-04-21
03 Amy Vezza [Note]: 'There is no document shepherd.' added by Amy Vezza
2010-02-16
01 (System) New version available: draft-hoffman-tls-master-secret-input-01.txt
2010-01-29
00 (System) New version available: draft-hoffman-tls-master-secret-input-00.txt