On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 03:01:07PM -0600, David Benjamin wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 1:27 AM Viktor Dukhovni
> wrote:
>
> > Also connection re-establishment has considerable cost, additional
> > TCP roundtrips on top of the extra TLS roundtrips.
> >
>
> Agreed. The other cost is that it can
On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 1:27 AM Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 12:45:22AM -0600, David Benjamin wrote:
>
> > An earlier iteration even placed the retry on the same connection, which
> > makes the analog clearer. (Doing it in the same connection is rather a
> > mess, so we bounc
On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 12:45:22AM -0600, David Benjamin wrote:
> An earlier iteration even placed the retry on the same connection, which
> makes the analog clearer. (Doing it in the same connection is rather a
> mess, so we bounce to a new one.)
Any concern about the possibility that the reaso
On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 12:45:22AM -0600, David Benjamin wrote:
> Thanks for the comment! The PR did try to touch on this, but perhaps I did a
> poor job of wording it:
> https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/pull/124/files#diff-4d2dc9df336bea8e17f5eb4ed7cb1107R511
>
> The intent is you use
Thanks for the comment! The PR did try to touch on this, but perhaps I did
a poor job of wording it:
https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/pull/124/files#diff-4d2dc9df336bea8e17f5eb4ed7cb1107R511
The intent is you use the retry keys just for that one retry. Subsequent
connection attempts re
On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 05:17:37PM -0600, David Benjamin wrote:
> We[*] wrote up some proposed changes for draft-ietf-tls-esni that we'd like
> the
> group's thoughts on. The goal is to make ESNI more robust and eliminate a
> bunch
> of deployment risks. The PRs are linked below:
>
> https://git
