On Wed, Jul 6, 2016 at 5:39 PM Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com> wrote: > 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. >
Me neither. To clarify, I mention this not as a suggestion, but to motivate asking about the type of message. If the only reason the proofs want them in the handshake bucket rather than the application data bucket is that they say "handshake" in them then, sure, let's do an inconsequential re-spelling and move on from this problem. But presumably something about the messages motivate this key separation issue and I'd like to know what they are. David
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
