PR Merged. -Ekr
On Fri, Sep 9, 2016 at 11:07 AM, Sean Turner <s...@sn3rd.com> wrote: > The discussion about KeyUpdate-related changes has trailed off so it is > time to begin to bring the discussion to a close. It appears that there as > if there is support to land https://github.com/tlswg/tls13-spec/pull/61. > But, there’s still some discussion about how to add both P3 and P4 [0]. In > the interest of making progress, we're instructing the editor to land PR#61 > now. > > Keith had argued for a restriction that wouldn't introduce any wire > changes: i.e., forbid implementations from sending an update_not_requested > KeyUpdate unless it is triggered by an update_requested KeyUpdate. Ilari > has pointed out a limitation with this approach, but the question is: does > the WG favor the restriction proposed by Keith? Please let the WG know by > next Wednesday (9/14) so that we can come closure on this topic. > > Thanks, > > J&S > > [0] Where Keith suggested: > > P3 = A side can learn that P1 has been read by the other side. > > P4 = Neither side can cause the other to accrue an unbounded deferred > write obligation; in fact the maximum accruable deferred write obligation > is one KeyUpdate. > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list > TLS@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
