Re: Protocol: PDUs received during TLS closure
Hallvard B Furuseth <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.ldapbis |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
The 'Outstanding operations after TLS closure/renegotiation' thread reminded me of a brief unresolved thread: http://www.openldap.org/lists/ietf-ldapbis/200403/msg00066.html At 10 Mar 2004, Kurt D. Zeilenga wrote: >At 05:51 AM 3/9/2004, Hallvard B Furuseth wrote: >>Protocol-22 says: >>> 4.14.3. Closing a TLS Connection >>> 4.14.3.1. Graceful Closure >> >>> The initiating protocol peer sends the TLS closure alert. If it >>> wishes to leave the LDAP connection intact, it then MUST cease to >>> send further PDUs and MUST ignore any received PDUs until it receives >>> a TLS closure alert from the other peer. >> >> Why must the client ignore received PDUs? It makes sense for servers, >> but clients could have use for them. At least unsolicited >> notifications. > > I don't think this is an TLS thing... I think it's more of > an LDAP thing. > > From a server perspective, it trying to say (I think) that a > server initiating the closure should not attempt to continue > returning PDUs for an outstanding operation (or send any additional > notices), and ignore requests to start processing any new > operations until it receives the alert from the client. > > And from a client perspective, it trying to say that clients > should not issue new operations until after it receives the > alert from the server. The text does imply that the client > should ignore notices. This seems somewhat odd. > > I am also concerned that the text doesn't discuss cipher suite > changes, which need similar consideration. > >>Is this some TLS thing, that the network data is unreliable until TLS >>closure is completed? If so there should not be talk about PDUs at all, >>since any sent PDUs may be malformed. > > Right, if it a TLS thing (which I don't think it is), it > should that further data arriving on the TLS connection is > to be ignored. -- Hallvard