Re: [Cfrg] Security proofs v DH backdoors

[Peter Gutmann <[e-mail]>]

Watson Ladd <[e-mail]> writes:

>I don't see any benefit, especially given the amount that gets changed by LTS
>for no reason.

Like what?  Most of it is just saying that a bunch of optional negotiated-by-
extension features that improve security should be mandatory (in other words
it's stuff that's already implemented, you just don't need to negotiate each
one piecemeal any more), and pretty much every change there is to address
things that have been security or interop issues in the past.  Another name
for it might be TLS-with-lessons-learned.

(This discussion would probably be better off-list, not sure if it's relevant
for CFRG).

Peter.