Hi Watson, On Tue, Aug 2, 2016 at 16:02, Watson Ladd wrote: >> However, there is also this in Sect. 3.6 which has caused some confusion and >> lengthy discussion among my colleagues and myself: >> >> o When the handshake has completed, the server needs to save the >> client_verify_data and server_verify_data values for future use. > >Yes, and since it doesn't read them out, it should use write only >memory as an optimization.
So I take it my interpretation is correct -- these values are only ever required for renegotiation and serve no other purpose? I.e. the hint can safely be ignored in this case and the implementation will still be fully RFC5746-compliant? All joking aside, this has seriously led to some discussions where implementation of said RFC was rejected because of the overhead it might cause. And even among some people who write SSL stacks for a living. So while, if the RFC is read correctly (it's "need", not "MUST"), this is obvious, it really is confusing in practice. Since wide adoption of this RFC is of interest to everyone, I think an official clarification might help tremendously. Even if it's really obvious for people who design TLS :-) Cheers, Johannes -- Johannes Bauer Engineering Field Services (HOME/EFS) Robert Bosch Smart Home GmbH | Schockenriedstr. 17 | 70565 Stuttgart-Vaihingen | GERMANY | www.bosch-smarthome.com Tel. +49(711)81112906 | johannes.ba...@bosch.com Registergericht: Amtsgericht Stuttgart, HRB 754585; Geschäftsführung: Dr. Peter Schnaebele, Veronika Danner _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
