RE: [TLS] Re: NIST TLS recomendations

[<Pasi.Eronen@xxxxxxxxx>]

Peter Gutmann wrote:
> However, I've just thought of another issue, is it worth noting the
> special case of a potential DH_anon with TLS- PSK?  Currently there
> are no DH_anon_PSK suites defined, but it would seem that one of the
> goals of TLS-PSK (operation on low-powered devices) would be met by
> DH_anon_PSK, since the PSK avoids the need for the unnecessary cert
> verification.

RFC 4279 does have "DHE_PSK" suites (Diffie-Hellman authenticated 
with a PSK; nothing anonymous there). Is this what you meant by
DH_anon_PSK, or something else?

Best regards,
Pasi

_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls