Re: [tcpinc] Why retain negotatiation

Watson Ladd writes: > Dear all, > Originally negotiation was proposed because EKR wanted to use TLS. > That has now ended, but we are retaining the negotiation layer with > far more generality then required. I'm not sure why that is. > Sincerely, > Watson As already noted

Re: [tcpinc] Why retain negotatiation

+1. Additionally, there has been interest expressed by others in using the ENO mechanism for negotiating privacy extensions to TLS, such as disabling SNI and having the server issue a cert without direct identifying information (e.g., delivering a nonce instead of a hostname in the CN). Dave

Re: [tcpinc] Why retain negotatiation

IIUC the idea is that the TLS work is not ended, merely suspended, and will resume once TLS 1.3 is out the door. Whether that will actually happen is of course not known. Yoav > On 16 Jul 2016, at 6:58 PM, Watson Ladd wrote: > > Dear all, > Originally negotiation was

[tcpinc] Why retain negotatiation

Dear all, Originally negotiation was proposed because EKR wanted to use TLS. That has now ended, but we are retaining the negotiation layer with far more generality then required. I'm not sure why that is. Sincerely, Watson ___ Tcpinc mailing list