--- Original Message -----
From: "Yoav Nir" <y...@checkpoint.com>
To: "Paul Hoffman" <paul.hoff...@vpnc.org>
Cc: "Stuart Cheshire" <chesh...@apple.com>; "IETF-Discussion list"
<ietf@ietf.org>
Sent: Monday, September 26, 2011 10:11 PM
>
> On Sep 26, 2011, at 5:25 AM, Paul Hoffman wrote:
>
> > On Sep 25, 2011, at 7:20 PM, Stuart Cheshire wrote:
> >
> >>> % svn info https://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/hybi
> >>> svn: OPTIONS of 'https://svn.tools.ietf.org/svn/wg/hybi': SSL negotiation
failed: SSL error code -1/1/336032856 (https://svn.tools.ietf.org)
> >>
> >> If you're on a Mac, can you please try this command for me and let me know
if it works for you or gives the 336032856 error?
> >
> > Happens to everyone with a Mac. Someone else will chime in before we
Californians wake up tomorrow saying what the problem is. Speculation on a
different list was that this is a mismatch between SSL library versions with
some interaction with the new TLS renegotiation fix, but I haven't seen
substantiation.
>
> I guess you're awake by now, but here goes. I'm attaching a tcpdump capture.
>
> The client sends a SNI extension with the name "svn.tools.ietf.org". For some
reason the server does not recognize the name. This is particularly puzzling
because the CommonName in the server certificate is "*.tools.ietf.org", which is
usually considered a match. The server
<tp>
Unfortunately, we now also have RFC6125 which encourages people to
" o Move away from including and checking strings that look like
domain names in the subject's Common Name."
in a slightly different, but closely related, context. It seems unlikely that
this advice is having an impact so soon, but it is another source of
potential confusion.
Tom Petch
sends a warning-level "unrecognized name" alert, and the client breaks the
connection. Here's what RFC 6066 has to say on the subject:
>
> If the server understood the ClientHello extension but
> does not recognize the server name, the server SHOULD take one of two
> actions: either abort the handshake by sending a fatal-level
> unrecognized_name(112) alert or continue the handshake. It is NOT
> RECOMMENDED to send a warning-level unrecognized_name(112) alert,
> because the client's behavior in response to warning-level alerts is
> unpredictable.
>
> Unpredictable indeed.
>
> Anyway, the server is wrong to send the alert on two counts: the name does
match, and the warning-level alert violates a "NOT RECOMMENDED"/
>
> OTOH, the client should not abort on a warning level alert.
>
> My opinion: it's the server that is more wrong.
>
> Yoav
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf mailing list
> Ietf@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
