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
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.