A perhaps radical suggestion:
Make the server name field fixed length e.g. 256 bytes. Longer
server names are not supported and clients MUST NOT send them.
(Both client and server can't use them because they won't fit in
the fixed length field.)
Putting a limitation like this one into a prot
On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 7:35 AM Bill Frantz wrote:
>
> A perhaps radical suggestion:
>
> Make the server name field fixed length e.g. 256 bytes. Longer
> server names are not supported and clients MUST NOT send them.
> (Both client and server can't use them because they won't fit in
> the fixed le
On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 07:52:33AM -0700, Watson Ladd wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 7:35 AM Bill Frantz wrote:
> >
> > A perhaps radical suggestion:
> >
> > Make the server name field fixed length e.g. 256 bytes. Longer
> > server names are not supported and clients MUST NOT send them.
> > (Bot
On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 12:13:39PM -0400, Ben Schwartz wrote:
> On the topic of radical suggestions, here's another one:
> https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/pull/186
>
> In brief, this replaces the variable-length name with a fixed-length
> hash, plus some accommodations to allow *.exam
On Tue, Oct 22, 2019 at 10:39:24PM -0700, Watson Ladd wrote:
>
> At the same time Client Hello sizes aren't constrained to be tiny, but
> the next problem of 1280 bytes is not that far off either. So we
> should be judicious in spending those bytes.
I do not think 1280 bytes is a big issue.
- If
On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 8:41 AM Ilari Liusvaara
wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 07:52:33AM -0700, Watson Ladd wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 7:35 AM Bill Frantz
> wrote:
> > >
> > > A perhaps radical suggestion:
> > >
> > > Make the server name field fixed length e.g. 256 bytes. Longer
> >
On 23/10/2019 17:13, Ben Schwartz wrote:
> On the topic of radical suggestions, here's another one:
> https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/pull/186
How about a variant like this (which is maybe close to your
most recent email, not quite sure):
Names < N octets: pad those to N.
Names >=
On Wed, Oct 23, 2019, at 2:12 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
>
> On 23/10/2019 17:13, Ben Schwartz wrote:
> > On the topic of radical suggestions, here's another one:
> > https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/pull/186
>
> How about a variant like this (which is maybe close to your
> most re
Hiya,
On 23/10/2019 22:45, Christopher Wood wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2019, at 2:12 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 23/10/2019 17:13, Ben Schwartz wrote:
>>> On the topic of radical suggestions, here's another one:
>>> https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/pull/186
>>
>> How abou
