It sounds like we have general consensus here. Does anyone object to my merging this PR?
-Ekr On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 10:34 AM, Ilari Liusvaara <ilariliusva...@welho.com> wrote: > On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 05:37:20PM +0000, David Benjamin wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 8:22 PM Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com> wrote: > > > > > > I would probably characterize it less as suites vs orthogonality, but as > > wanting to keep divisions in meaningful and universal places and not > > splitting up tightly-coupled decisions. The flexibility from > orthogonality > > can be handy, but going too far---as I believe TLS 1.2 did with > signature, > > prehash, and curve---complicates everything. Imagine if negotiating > > AES_128_GCM required separately negotiating block cipher AES-128, mode > CTR, > > and MAC GHASH. > > It isn't even orthogonal, it is coupled, which is way worse and quite > difficult to implement correctly. > > I now consider the way TLS 1.3 draft / RFC4492bis draft currently does > EdDSA negotiation a bad idea (what is proposed here is vast improvement). > > > -Ilari >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
