Re: [Secdispatch] Clarification for a question about OCSP caching from Nick (Cloudflare)

On Wed, Nov 27, 2019 at 9:43 AM Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
wrote:

>
> Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com> wrote:
>     > It's probably useful to start with a clear problem statement. if I
>     > understood Max's presentation correctly, it's that it's too
> expensive to
>     > compute all the OCSP signatures.  I'm not sure I'm persuaded that
> that's
>     > true, as public key signatures are very fast (especially if you use
> ECDSA),
>     > and even the largest public CAs don't actually have that many
> certificates
>     > on the grand scheme of things [0]. However, to the extent to which
> it is
>     > true, it seems like the natural response would be to move to a batch
>     > signature scheme, such as the one David Benjamin proposed for TLS
> [1].
>
> This would work well for TLS.
> It would be good to understand if the problems that Dr. Pala is talking
> about
> are specifically about TLS, or if it relates to some other system common in
> the cable industry.
>

I think it's less a matter of TLS versus not TLS but rather of what you are
trying to optimize for.

If it's just signing bandwidth then this is a good solution. If it's also
network bandwidth, then perhaps less so, though we'd need to do the math.

-Ekr

> --
> ]               Never tell me the odds!                 | ipv6 mesh
> networks [
> ]   Michael Richardson, Sandelman Software Works        | network
> architect  [
> ]     mcr@sandelman.ca  http://www.sandelman.ca/        |   ruby on
> rails    [
>
> _______________________________________________
> Secdispatch mailing list
> Secdispatch@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/secdispatch
>