On Oct 22, 2020, at 10:12 AM, Jorge Vergara <jovergar=40microsoft....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote: > > My concern with this proposal of defining a new KDF is that it is a clear > breaking change to any implementation that may exist.
I am wary of breaking existing and deployed implementations. > In my opinion such a change would be fine if we want to bump some version > numbers - maybe the TEAP version number has to be bumped, or maybe this can > be achieved solely with the TLV version fields some of the TLVs contain. I > haven’t thought about this aspect of too much. But redefining the KDF > entirely with no version changes would be disruptive to multiple products. TBH, there isn't a lot of point. We should just document what implementations do today. Then, suggest that everyone move to TLS 1.3, and define entirely new derivations there. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
