Re: [TLS] Proposed text for removing renegotiation

[Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, 2014-06-10 at 14:04 -0300, Watson Ladd wrote:

> Quick: what is the proper response when the Certificate changes
> between a negotiation and a renegotiation?

That is on the application protocol to decide.

> What is the relation between the two connections? Can there ever be
> sensible semantics for this?
> Renegotiation makes reads block on writes, a problem for all
> event-based systems. Exposing renegotiation to application level code
> is hard.

It has been done already, and not only once. Could you provide evidence
of this hardness that you claim?

> Show me a formalization of renegotiation semantics, and I might be
> convinced otherwise. 

I think it is up to the one proposing the change to provide evidence of
the contrary and there has been none so far. Otherwise we do things like
prove me TLS secure  combination or we drop it completely. Formal models
lag behind protocols.

> But to say that it is
> "not complex" belies the experience of implementors, theorists, and
> the past 17 years of security

It's good to know that you are representing them. Could you share your
experience with implementing or modeling TLS? Or at least cite some
document that backs up the claims that you make.

regards,
Nikos