Re: [TLS] ESNI robustness and GREASE PRs - client tracking concerns?

[Viktor Dukhovni <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Dec 18, 2018 at 12:45:22AM -0600, David Benjamin wrote:

> An earlier iteration even placed the retry on the same connection, which
> makes the analog clearer.  (Doing it in the same connection is rather a
> mess, so we bounce to a new one.)

Any concern about the possibility that the reason the key did not
work was that the particular server had unexpected keys, but
reconnecting might land on a different server, with yet another set
of keys?  (Which is to say that I am concerned, but perhaps you're
not?).

Also connection re-establishment has considerable cost, additional
TCP roundtrips on top of the extra TLS roundtrips.

Is the HRR idea being explored in the parallel thread not viable?
[ That'd be fine by me, one less thing to worry about, but it did
seem worth exploring at first blush...  The suggestion of using it
as a fallback when there are either no keys in DNS, or they don't
work also seems like it could be viable. ]


-- 
	Viktor.