Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Should server TP encryption be a requirement for the cryptographic handshake? (#2920)

David Schinazi <> Sun, 21 July 2019 22:16 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 57BC11201D4 for <>; Sun, 21 Jul 2019 15:16:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.454
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.454 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_IMAGE_ONLY_20=1.546, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MAILING_LIST_MULTI=-1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nzFtganxnxrR for <>; Sun, 21 Jul 2019 15:16:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8FFB8120173 for <>; Sun, 21 Jul 2019 15:16:14 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2019 15:16:13 -0700
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=pf2014; t=1563747373; bh=jCmulIROmcB7JODU6kM3Mg88TAw+nQXl3FbhEqhlbRk=; h=Date:From:Reply-To:To:Cc:In-Reply-To:References:Subject:List-ID: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:From; b=MXxirhSAD9yubbo9nrmOMoeisNlAui/Ple6LJmIdO0HvZTd0ZsSwuoKRTw4Yrd8oM zeBpAWLMKLJFQRz76WNlVb/HYss9EzSgUJ/zHO20TR3LFeNDUN1dmDtfOieYxTLCnC 0d1I/YoLXW/083n/XQNMt+jXhP/x73rQaOJ5TzMU=
From: David Schinazi <>
Reply-To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
To: quicwg/base-drafts <>
Cc: Subscribed <>
Message-ID: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/2920/>
In-Reply-To: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
References: <quicwg/base-drafts/issues/>
Subject: Re: [quicwg/base-drafts] Should server TP encryption be a requirement for the cryptographic handshake? (#2920)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="--==_mimepart_5d34e42dc7b1a_23153fc8c60cd9646635dc"; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: list
X-GitHub-Sender: DavidSchinazi
X-GitHub-Recipient: quic-issues
X-GitHub-Reason: subscribed
X-Auto-Response-Suppress: All
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: Notification list for GitHub issues related to the QUIC WG <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2019 22:16:21 -0000

This makes sense to me. The TLS document ensures that the server's transport parameters are encrypted so an editorial PR changing the transport doc to require that should be sufficient.

You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: