Hi Nick, given my discussion with Martin in this thread https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg21481.html I like your idea of making the post-handshake messages optional since it allows me to develop a TLS 1.3 client that is smaller in code size.
Ciao Hannes On 10/08/2016 03:03 AM, Nick Sullivan wrote: > There has been a lot of discussion lately about post-handshake messages > that do not contain application data and how to handle them. This PR is > an attempt to make the story more explicit by adding a new > post_handshake extension to TLS 1.3. > > Supporting all types of post-handshake messages can require extra > complexity and logic, even when the features that these messages enable > are not needed. Some types of connections/implementations don't need to > support key updates (some unidirectional connections), session tickets > (pure PSK implementations) and post-handshake client auth (most > browsers). These are all currently SHOULDs in the spec and they don't > need to be. > > In order to simplify the logic around dealing with post-handshake > messages, this proposal makes support for each of these modes explicit > via a new handshake extension. This change also makes the path to > introducing other types of post-handshake messages in future drafts more > explicit. > > PR: > https://github.com/tlswg/tls13-spec/pull/676 > > Nick > > > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list > TLS@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
