On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 7:17 PM Rob Sayre <say...@gmail.com> wrote: > Is removing HRR on the table? >
No, I don't think so. It performs an important function. Moreover, the intent of this revision to TLS 1.3 was to clarify 8446, and this would be a major (and breaking!) change. > Maybe just opening a new socket would suffice? > I don't see that this would help. 1. It would not be clear to the client what it had to do to provide an acceptable CH. 2. Without some sort of HRR-like coupling, it would allow downgrade attacks. -Ekr > thanks, > Rob > > On Mon, Oct 24, 2022 at 13:08 Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com> wrote: > >> Hi Folks, >> >> I have just published draft-ietf-tls-rfc8446bis-05, with >> the following changes: >> >> * Update the extension table (Issue 1241) >> * Clarify user_canceled (Issue 1208) >> * Clarify 0-RTT cache side channels (Issue 1225) >> * Require that message reinjection be done with the current hash. >> Potentially a clarification and potentially a wire format >> change depending on previous interpretation (Issue 1227) >> >> I landed a few current PRs without review. If people think I handled >> these incorrectly or mis-merged, please flag that. >> >> This includes most of the outstanding issues and PRs. >> The following remain: >> >> PRS >> 1275 -- Clarifying unsolicited extensions >> [Waiting for review from Kaduk] >> 1270 -- The impact of excessive key updates >> [Working on text with MT] >> 1269 -- A new error for invalid tickets >> [see below] >> 1231 -- Update in light of RFC 8773 >> [I missed this, but will get to it on my next pass] >> >> >> SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES >> 1223, 1224 -- Revising the HRR rules >> 1278 -- There are no entries in the table for which TLS 1.3 >> messages token binding goes in. >> >> >> As preview of our discussion in London. >> >> I believe I can handle 1275, 1270, and 1231 at the editorial >> level. >> >> I believe we should not land 1269. As noted in the issue there is >> already an unknown_psk_identity, which captures this. I propose to >> close this issue. >> >> We need to agree on what appears in the table for token binding. >> I think this is mechanical. MT? DavidBen? Andrei? >> >> >> This leaves us with 1223 and 1224. I agree that the HRR semantics >> are a little confusing, but we don't seem to be making much >> progress on revising them and given that 8446 is already >> out, I think we should just publish this revision and then >> if people get energy to address this issue we can do so later. >> >> >> -Ekr >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
