On Fri, Feb 6, 2026 at 2:33 PM Muhammad Usama Sardar <
[email protected]> wrote:

> That was very insightful. A few clarification questions inline:
> On 04.02.26 16:04, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
> 2. It allows you to handle the client authentication case as well
>
> Not sure what "it" refers to. Assuming the proposed *pq_cert_available*
> extension, isn't it typically the case that client authentication requires
> support of the higher layers (and not done exclusively at TLS layer)? So I
> don't see this as benefit, since this might mean you need to change *both*
> TLS stack as well as higher layers.
>

"It" refers to "doing this at the TLS layer rather than the HTTP layer". I
don't disagree with you about the need to change the software at both
layers; it's just that you wouldn't need to invent a new HTTP-level
indicator for the client auth case.

Once the server has committed to algorithm X it needs to maintain
> algorithm X for the validity period, even if it also supports algorithm
> Y.
>
> Is the commitment per connection or per client? Could you explain how does
> one infer that?
>

It's supposed to be per client, but, as you suggest here, the server
doesn't necessarily know the client's identity.


> [...] I haven't worked through this entirely, but I think the correct
> semantics need some fairly close study to avoid creating situations
> where one side or another is bricked.
>
> I believe formal analysis can help here.
>

Agreed.


> the client (usually) knows the server's
> identity in advance [...]
>
> I agree with your overall point on asymmetry but I wonder why do you write
> "(usually)"? If the client doesn't know the server's identity, what does it
> ask for in the connection? In other words, what are the real-world use
> cases when client doesn't know the server's identity in advance? Are there
> any such specs?
>
I don't have a good example to hand, but TLS is a very commonly used
protocol, so I was just being cautious.

-Ekr
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]

Reply via email to