RE: [TLS] Comments on TLS identity protection

[<Pasi.Eronen@xxxxxxxxx>]

badra@xxxxxxxx wrote:

> does no one care about his server consuming amounts of CPU to do,
> among others, two sets of crypto-computations for nothing?  

If the extra computations occur only in very rare situations, 
it's perfectly reasonable not to care about it (at least 
sufficiently to spend the $$$ for designing, implementing, 
testing, deploying, etc. a new mechanism).

> Many mechanisms can be designed to add client privacy to TLS, but
> the question arises: which one is more efficient and preferment?

My point was that we *already* have one mechanism for client privacy
in TLS. Thus IMHO the right question to ask is *NOT* which one is 
more efficient and preferred, but rather is the existing mechanism 
so bad that we should spend effort in adding *another* one?

> Haven't many documents been originally approved for easy 
> deployment and optimization reasons?

I think deployment-wise, double handshake has the advantage that
it's already specified and implemented.

Best regards,
Pasi

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