Re: [TLS] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-tls-tls13-18

2016-10-28 Thread Martin Rex
Joseph Salowey wrote: > > This is a working group last call announcement for draft-ietf-tls-tls13-18, > to run through November 20. If possible, we would like to receive comments > on the list by November 13 so they can be discussed at the meeting in > Seoul. We hope to address any substantive issu

Re: [TLS] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-tls-tls13-18

2016-10-28 Thread Ilari Liusvaara
On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 06:00:03PM +0200, Martin Rex wrote: > Joseph Salowey wrote: > > There are two seriously backwards-incompatible changes in the > current proposal that provide zero value, but completely break > backwards-compatibility with existing middleware infrastructure. > > > (1) hidi

Re: [TLS] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-tls-tls13-18

2016-10-28 Thread Eric Rescorla
On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 3:00 AM, Martin Rex wrote: > Joseph Salowey wrote: > > > > This is a working group last call announcement for > draft-ietf-tls-tls13-18, > > to run through November 20. If possible, we would like to receive > comments > > on the list by November 13 so they can be discussed

Re: [TLS] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-tls-tls13-18

2016-10-28 Thread Martin Rex
If the server_name remains in plaintext and full sight in ClientHello (where it needs to be for TLSv1.2 backwards compatibility anyway), then I don't have an issue. (I'm sorry for not reading the draft in full). Eric Rescorla wrote: > >> (2) hiding of the TLS extension SNI. >> Right now it

Re: [TLS] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-tls-tls13-18

2016-10-28 Thread Eric Rescorla
On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 5:23 AM, Martin Rex wrote: > If the server_name remains in plaintext and full sight in ClientHello > (where it needs to be for TLSv1.2 backwards compatibility anyway), > then I don't have an issue. (I'm sorry for not reading the draft in full) Good to hear. > Eric Res

Re: [TLS] Working Group Last Call for draft-ietf-tls-tls13-18

2016-10-28 Thread Martin Rex
Ilari Liusvaara wrote: > Martin Rex wrote: >> Joseph Salowey wrote: >> >> There are two seriously backwards-incompatible changes in the >> current proposal that provide zero value, but completely break >> backwards-compatibility with existing middleware infrastructure. >> >> >> (1) hiding of the

[TLS] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-thomson-tls-tls13-vectors-00.txt

2016-10-28 Thread Martin Thomson
A lot of people have asked for test vectors for TLS 1.3. This draft includes two very simple handshakes: a 1-RTT handshake and a 0-RTT handshake resumed from the first. The baling-wire and string holding this together are here: https://github.com/martinthomson/tls13-vectors Requests for scenar