On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 5:24 PM, Dave Garrett <davemgarr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, July 06, 2016 06:19:29 pm David Benjamin wrote: > > I'm also curious which post-handshake messages are the problem. If we > were > > to rename "post-handshake handshake messages" to "post-handshake bonus > > messages" with a distinct bonus_message record type, where would there > > still be an issue? (Alerts and application data share keys and this seems > > to have been fine.) > > Recasting all the post-handshake handshake messages as not something named > "handshake" does make a degree of sense, on its own. (bikeshedding: I'd > name it something more descriptive like "secondary negotiation" messages or > something, though.) Even if this doesn't directly help with the issue at > hand here, does forking these into a new ContentType sound like a useful > move, in general? I'm not sure what this would accomplish. -Ekr > > > Dave > > _______________________________________________ > 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
