Transport Layer Security (TLS) Session Resumption without Server-Side State
draft-salowey-tls-ticket-07
Revision differences
Document history
Date | Rev. | By | Action |
---|---|---|---|
2012-08-22
|
07 | (System) | post-migration administrative database adjustment to the Yes position for Ted Hardie |
2006-03-13
|
07 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent by Amy Vezza |
2006-03-06
|
07 | Amy Vezza | IESG state changed to Approved-announcement sent |
2006-03-06
|
07 | Amy Vezza | IESG has approved the document |
2006-03-06
|
07 | Amy Vezza | Closed "Approve" ballot |
2006-03-03
|
07 | (System) | Removed from agenda for telechat - 2006-03-02 |
2006-03-02
|
07 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation by Amy Vezza |
2006-03-02
|
07 | Amy Vezza | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Allison Mankin by Amy Vezza |
2006-03-02
|
07 | Brian Carpenter | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Brian Carpenter by Brian Carpenter |
2006-03-02
|
07 | Sam Hartman | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Sam Hartman by Sam Hartman |
2006-03-02
|
07 | Margaret Cullen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Margaret Wasserman by Margaret Wasserman |
2006-03-02
|
07 | Jon Peterson | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Jon Peterson by Jon Peterson |
2006-03-01
|
07 | David Kessens | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for David Kessens by David Kessens |
2006-03-01
|
07 | Mark Townsley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Mark Townsley by Mark Townsley |
2006-03-01
|
07 | Bert Wijnen | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Bert Wijnen by Bert Wijnen |
2006-02-28
|
07 | Bill Fenner | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Bill Fenner by Bill Fenner |
2006-02-27
|
07 | Ted Hardie | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Ted Hardie has been changed to Yes from No Objection by Ted Hardie |
2006-02-27
|
07 | Ted Hardie | [Ballot Position Update] Position for Ted Hardie has been changed to No Objection from Discuss by Ted Hardie |
2006-02-27
|
07 | Scott Hollenbeck | [Ballot Position Update] New position, No Objection, has been recorded for Scott Hollenbeck by Scott Hollenbeck |
2006-02-24
|
07 | Ted Hardie | [Ballot discuss] Generally, I think is good stuff, and I expect to vote "Yes" eventually. I'm concerned, though, about how the draft specifies the server's … [Ballot discuss] Generally, I think is good stuff, and I expect to vote "Yes" eventually. I'm concerned, though, about how the draft specifies the server's behavior in the case where a ticket is not honored. Currently, the draft says: If the server cannot or does not want to honor the ticket then it can initiate a full handshake with the client. I believe it would be valuable to expand this to describe in detail what happens when the server does not honor a specific ticket but would be willing to provide a new ticket (as, for example, when the ticket has expired) and to distinguish it from cases where the server is not willing to honor any tickets at this time. While some of this can be inferred from section 3.3 and 3.4, I think clarification will improve the likelihood of interoperable implementations. Examples of the type given in 3.1 would be one way to achieve this. The document also says: TLS clients may be given a hint of the lifetime of the ticket. Since the lifetime of a ticket may be unspecified a client has its own local policy which determines when it discards tickets. If given, is this hint provided in an established format? If so, a pointer to that format would be valuable. If not, some guidance on the necessary elements of a hint would be useful, especially in light of this statement: Clients MUST NOT examine the ticket under the assumption that it complies with this document. The timestamp in the ticket allows the server to expire the ticket, but the client cannot use this structure to infer the timestamp. I assume, then, that it must either receive hints which indepdently reference the time of origination, that the hints use some independent format for time of expiry, or that it must assume the time of receipt plus some delta (e.g. 24 hours) is appropriate. |
2006-02-24
|
07 | Ted Hardie | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Discuss, has been recorded for Ted Hardie by Ted Hardie |
2006-02-13
|
07 | Russ Housley | Placed on agenda for telechat - 2006-03-02 by Russ Housley |
2006-01-26
|
07 | (System) | New version available: draft-salowey-tls-ticket-07.txt |
2005-12-20
|
07 | Russ Housley | [Ballot Position Update] New position, Yes, has been recorded for Russ Housley |
2005-12-20
|
07 | Russ Housley | Ballot has been issued by Russ Housley |
2005-12-20
|
07 | Russ Housley | Created "Approve" ballot |
2005-12-20
|
07 | Russ Housley | State Changes to IESG Evaluation from Waiting for AD Go-Ahead by Russ Housley |
2005-12-16
|
06 | (System) | New version available: draft-salowey-tls-ticket-06.txt |
2005-12-12
|
07 | (System) | State has been changed to Waiting for AD Go-Ahead from In Last Call by system |
2005-11-27
|
07 | Michelle Cotton | IANA Last Call Comments: Upon approval of this document the IANA will assign a TLS extension number (the value 35 is suggested) to the SessionTicket … IANA Last Call Comments: Upon approval of this document the IANA will assign a TLS extension number (the value 35 is suggested) to the SessionTicket TLS extension in the following registry: http://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-extensiontype-values IANA will also assign a TLS HandshakeType number to the SessionTicket handshake type located at the following registry: http://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-parameters Please confirm that IANA understands these assignments to go in appropriate registries as described above. |
2005-11-14
|
07 | Amy Vezza | Last call sent |
2005-11-14
|
07 | Amy Vezza | State Changes to In Last Call from Last Call Requested by Amy Vezza |
2005-11-13
|
07 | Russ Housley | AD comments sent on 13-Nov-2005. None are serious enough to delay IETF Last Call. |
2005-11-13
|
07 | Russ Housley | Last Call was requested by Russ Housley |
2005-11-13
|
07 | Russ Housley | State Changes to Last Call Requested from Publication Requested by Russ Housley |
2005-11-13
|
07 | (System) | Ballot writeup text was added |
2005-11-13
|
07 | (System) | Last call text was added |
2005-11-13
|
07 | (System) | Ballot approval text was added |
2005-11-10
|
07 | Russ Housley | Draft Added by Russ Housley in state Publication Requested |
2005-10-20
|
05 | (System) | New version available: draft-salowey-tls-ticket-05.txt |
2005-09-08
|
04 | (System) | New version available: draft-salowey-tls-ticket-04.txt |
2005-07-15
|
03 | (System) | New version available: draft-salowey-tls-ticket-03.txt |
2005-02-21
|
02 | (System) | New version available: draft-salowey-tls-ticket-02.txt |
2005-02-18
|
(System) | Posted related IPR disclosure: Eric Rescorla's statement about possible IPR claimed in draft-salowey-tls-ticket-01.txt belonging to Hewlett Packard | |
2005-02-03
|
(System) | Posted related IPR disclosure: Cisco's Statement about IPR claimed in draft-salowey-tls-ticket-01 | |
2004-08-23
|
01 | (System) | New version available: draft-salowey-tls-ticket-01.txt |
2004-05-19
|
00 | (System) | New version available: draft-salowey-tls-ticket-00.txt |