Re: [TLS] Spec issue with RFC 7627 (EMS) and resumption

2021-10-28 Thread Achim Kraus
Hi David, I'm still not sure, if there is just a misunderstanding: For me, case 2, the support of legacy peers comes with using only full-handshakes, and no abbreviated handshakes. For the client the consequence is, to use full-handshakes with legacy servers. So, I would assume, that just the

Re: [TLS] [kitten] Fwd: Last Call: (Channel Bindings for TLS 1.3) to Proposed Standard

2021-10-28 Thread Jonathan Hoyland
Hi Ruslan, Yes, two distinct TLS connections having the same exporter key would be really bad, but I'm specifically talking about two runs of some protocol bound to a single TLS session. A single TLS session will return the same key (modulo rekeying, resumption etc.) if you call the Exporter API

Re: [TLS] Spec issue with RFC 7627 (EMS) and resumption

2021-10-28 Thread David Benjamin
It depends on what the server is trying to do. If the server is trying to mandate EMS, aborting the connection is correct. E.g. the full handshake section then says: If the server receives a ClientHello without the extension, it SHOULD abort the handshake if it does not wish to interoperate

Re: [TLS] [kitten] Fwd: Last Call: (Channel Bindings for TLS 1.3) to Proposed Standard

2021-10-28 Thread Jonathan Hoyland
Hi Sam, Please see my comments inline. Regards, Jonathan On Wed, 27 Oct 2021 at 22:13, Sam Whited wrote: > I've been trying to figure out exactly what you mean before replying and > have been struggling to do so, so I apologize if I'm misunderstanding > your emails, but I believe this isn't