On Thursday, 23 January 2020 03:14:55 CET, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 05:12:34PM -0800, Watson Ladd wrote:
- either the TLS server says "here's a ticket and you MUST or MAY
replace the one you already had"
or
- the TLS client gets to ask for no unnecessary new tick
On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 12:57:31PM +0100, Hubert Kario wrote:
> > The deployed base of Postfix servers issues multi-use tickets (always,
> > there's no extension to tell me otherwise), and sends zero tickets
> > on resumption, so I need to not just throw away tickets that are
> > still valid.
>
>
On Thu, Jan 23, 2020, 4:41 AM Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 12:57:31PM +0100, Hubert Kario wrote:
>
> > > The deployed base of Postfix servers issues multi-use tickets (always,
> > > there's no extension to tell me otherwise), and sends zero tickets
> > > on resumption, so I ne
On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 09:43:21AM -0800, Watson Ladd wrote:
> Sending a new ticket doesn't force clients to store it.
Sure, but if the old ticket will not be accepted again then the client
will incur a full handshake later. The client doesn't know if the old
ticket will or will not be accepted a
Hiya,
I've started to code up a guess as to how the tunnel
or encrypted client hello version of ESNI [1] might
look like in the future draft-06.
Note that my branch [2] doesn't actually work yet, and
embeds a bunch of guesses as to what draft-06 might
include, so mega-caveats apply:-)
As you'd
On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 01:32:51PM -0600, Nico Williams wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2020 at 09:43:21AM -0800, Watson Ladd wrote:
> > Sending a new ticket doesn't force clients to store it.
>
> Sure, but if the old ticket will not be accepted again then the client
> will incur a full handshake later.
A new meeting session request has just been submitted by Christopher A. Wood, a
Chair of the tls working group.
-
Working Group Name: Transport Layer Security
Area Name: Security Area
Session Requester: Christopher Wood
Number of Sessio
