Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 Record Layer Format

Benjamin Kaduk <bkaduk@akamai.com> Wed, 08 March 2017 21:27 UTC

To: Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofenig@gmx.net>
References: <296debba-b5a5-d063-4e01-59a3f110fe14@gmx.net> <20170306155516.GA24925@LK-Perkele-V2.elisa-laajakaista.fi> <f306a798-2ee6-6927-c1da-5236f0cc8ce8@gmx.net>
From: Benjamin Kaduk <bkaduk@akamai.com>
Message-ID: <920ab06c-f0f1-2d43-52d8-d76d718b3121@akamai.com>
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2017 15:27:48 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <f306a798-2ee6-6927-c1da-5236f0cc8ce8@gmx.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------ACBD7766E3164EA29B8AF49A"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/2kY5ck6HaiBj0tZFIJLAhxEU7rw>
Cc: "<tls@ietf.org>" <tls@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 Record Layer Format
Precedence: list

On 03/08/2017 04:25 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
> Hi Ilari,
>
> yes, I am exactly talking about these bytes that are useless to send
> around in some deployment environments.
>
> I would expect to at least provide the option of not sending the data in
> some cases would be useful.
>

I would not expect us to provide that option.  The cost of introducing a
negotiation mechanism and interop headaches does not seem worth the gain
of three octets per encrypted record.

-Ben

[TLS] TLS 1.3 Record Layer Format Hannes Tschofenig
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 Record Layer Format Ilari Liusvaara
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 Record Layer Format Adam Langley
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 Record Layer Format Eric Rescorla
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 Record Layer Format Hannes Tschofenig
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 Record Layer Format Benjamin Kaduk
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 Record Layer Format Martin Thomson
Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 Record Layer Format Eric Rescorla