Hiya,
On 02/07/2019 03:38, Martin Thomson wrote:
> Keep in mind that you are going to be racing anyway, unless you are
> lucky enough to have a protocol that leaves enough space in the MTU
> for all your extra stuff.
I guess split-mode MTU issues provide another argument
against including padded_
On Tue, Jul 2, 2019, at 01:12, Ben Schwartz wrote:
> To be clear, are you suggesting TLS-in-TLS, similar to Stephen's
> suggestion? Or are you suggesting a parallel connection to deliver the
> metadata?
I'm thinking that a parallel connection for metadata is going to be more
efficient in the ge
On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 11:36 PM Martin Thomson wrote:
> You might like to coordinate with Martin Duke, who is doing similar (but
> different) things with QUIC:
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-duke-quic-load-balancers-04
Thanks for this reference. I was not aware of it.
Personally, I fi
You might like to coordinate with Martin Duke, who is doing similar (but
different) things with QUIC:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-duke-quic-load-balancers-04
Personally, I find this sort of thing difficult to reason about. I would
rather have a separate TLS connection with each backend t
Hiya,
On 28/06/2019 19:47, Ben Schwartz wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 28, 2019 at 1:34 PM Stephen Farrell
> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Ben,
>>
>> Thanks for posting that - good to see a start on plugging
>> that gap.
>>
>> On 28/06/2019 17:52, Ben Schwartz wrote:
>>> Hi TLS,
>>>
>>> This is a proposal for a very
Hi Ben,
Thanks for posting that - good to see a start on plugging
that gap.
On 28/06/2019 17:52, Ben Schwartz wrote:
> Hi TLS,
>
> This is a proposal for a very simple new protocol whose main purpose is to
> enable ESNI "split mode". Ultimately, I hope that this protocol can also
> enable more
