Subject: [Isms] updated TLS drafts published: -06 and -07

From: Wes Hardaker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2010 16:42:03 -0800

I've just published new versions of the WG's TLSTM draft.

The -06 version incorporates all the changes identified until the
January 19th cutoff date set by Juergen, except the most recent
discussion involving server side counters and properly counting only
things identified via the ASI handling.

The -07 version contains changes to reflect the new server-side counters
and some checks to ensure all counters are properly updated during the
EoP.  One counter was removed, the snmpTlstmTLSProtectionErrors counter,
which was diving into TLS details and was only discussed during the DTLS
specific EoP handling in the first place.  Normal TLS implementations
would probably never be able to increment this counter within the
confines of the SNMPv3 architecture.

The diffs for the -05 to -06 changes are found in the following URL:

  http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?difftype=--hwdiff&url2=draft-ietf-isms-dtls-tm-06.txt

The diffs for the -06 to -07 changes are found in the following URL:

  http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?difftype=--hwdiff&url2=draft-ietf-isms-dtls-tm-06.txt

This document has no outstanding issues left with it that have been
brought up by working group members.  I believe it is ready for it to be
submitted to the IESG.

-- 
Wes Hardaker
Cobham Analytic Solutions

---

From: Juergen Schoenwaelder <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 12:37:34 +0100

On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 01:42:03AM +0100, Wes Hardaker wrote:

[...]
 
> brought up by working group members.  I believe it is ready for it to be

I like to ask everybody to check the edits and to raise any issues
with the edits by Tuesday 2nd the latest.

/js

-- 
Juergen Schoenwaelder           Jacobs University Bremen gGmbH
Phone: +49 421 200 3587         Campus Ring 1, 28759 Bremen, Germany
Fax:   +49 421 200 3103         <http://www.jacobs-university.de/>

---

From: "tom.petch" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 14:50:03 +0100

Almost

tlstmCertSANIpAddress OBJECT-IDENTITY
    STATUS        current
    DESCRIPTION  "Maps a subjectAltName's iPAddress to a
should I think be 
tlstmCertSANIPAddress
here, and in tlstmCertSANAny.

and Wes said 25Jan2010
 
              + I didn't include a reference to the
                 draft-saintandre-tls-server-id-check document since
                 we're unsure of it's future progress and it's not the
                 only way that an identity could be checked.

In fact, there are still references to the I-D both in the MIB module and
in the earlier text.  I am ok with that, my previous problem was the 
contradiction between that I-D as it currently stands and with 
the MIB module but that contradiction has now gone. 

Tom Petch

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Juergen Schoenwaelder" <[email-masked]>
To: "Wes Hardaker" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 12:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Isms] updated TLS drafts published: -06 and -07

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

---

From: Wes Hardaker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2010 11:22:43 -0800

>>>>> On Fri, 29 Jan 2010 14:50:03 +0100, "tom.petch" <[email-masked]> said:

tp> Almost

I'm not sure what "almost" means there and whether you expect action
based on it.

tp> + I didn't include a reference to the
tp> draft-saintandre-tls-server-id-check document
...

I should have said "hard reference" there.  We do use "fuzzy references"
for a number of things to allow other architectures to be used where we
don't require a hard-reference ("this and only this" reference).
-- 
Wes Hardaker
Cobham Analytic Solutions