On Sun, May 24, 2020 at 11:01 AM Thomas Fossati <thomas.foss...@arm.com> wrote:
> On 22/05/2020, 01:09, "Christopher Wood" <c...@heapingbits.net> wrote: > > On Thu, May 21, 2020, at 9:22 AM, Thomas Fossati wrote: > > > Hi Chris, > > > > > > On 21/05/2020, 17:00, "Christopher Wood" <c...@heapingbits.net> > > > wrote: > > > > *One proposal to address this is by extending the AAD to include > > > > the pseudo-header. However, the chairs feel this is an unnecessary > > > > divergence from QUIC. > > > > > > I don't understand the "unnecessary" in the above para, i.e., why > > > are we so tied to QUIC in this case? I'm asking because it looks > > > like this was a core criterion in the Chairs' proposal. > > > Sorry for the confusion! The point here was that QUIC authenticates > > what's on the wire, which we felt was important. I should have spelled > > that out. There are of course other things to consider, as Martin > > points out. > > OK, thanks for clarifying. > > I want to be able to use implicit CIDs so I don't support PR#148 as-is. > In what context do you have a use for implicit CIDs? -Ekr > As much as I'd like to go for a pure pseudo-header approach, I don't > think I have enough data at this point in time that I'd feel safe going > that way. > > Since adding implicit CID to the AD doesn't look like a big deal in > terms of performance overhead, that would be my preference. > > cheers, t > > IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are > confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended > recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the > contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the > information in any medium. Thank you. > _______________________________________________ > 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
