Re: [TLS] Comments on TLS identity protection

[badra <badra@xxxxxxxx>]

Hi Pasi,

Pasi.Eronen@xxxxxxxxx a écrit :
> If the extra computations occur only in very rare situations, 
> it's perfectly reasonable not to care about it 

I disagree. Anybody can connect to your server at any time and doing 
uncompleted double handshake. It is not  a rare situation.


> (at least 
> sufficiently to spend the $$$ for designing, implementing, 
> testing, deploying, etc. a new mechanism).
>   

How much :). The proposed changes are minimal.

> 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?
>
>   

I tried to explain why double handshake is not good in terms of 
optimization and security consideration.

Well, I know your opinion regarding the double handshake since 
Montreal's meeting when you said "it would the same end result as adding 
a couple of roundtrips".
Note that double handshake at this time was not described in 
draft-simon-emu-rfc2716bis-03 and it has been added by August 2006, one 
month after Montreal meeting and three months after 
draft-urien-badra-eap-tls-identity-protection :)

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

Any link to test the implementation, please?

Best regards,
Badra


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