Re: [TLS] Next Protocol Negotiation 03

[Martin Rex <[e-mail]>]

Marsh Ray wrote:
> 
> On 04/25/2012 02:32 PM, Marsh Ray wrote:
> >
> > I don't speak for the Tor project, but I don't think this design is
> > going to meet anyone's requirements for serious censorship resistance.
> >
> > Nevertheless, giving some privacy to the significant bits of the
> > handshake in a way that is more latency-friendly than full renegotiation
> > is very appealing. It seems likely to enable new and interesting
> > applications, SPDY is just one good example.
> 
> Just an update, I've made contact with the Tor project. As heavy users 
> of TLS, they are interested in the direction the protocol evolves. They 
> may also have some useful input here on this issue of privacy of 
> handshake records.

  http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc4680

describes two additional generic handshake messages in the cleartext
part of the TLS handshake.

Maybe we should define something similar for the encrypted part of
the handshake, so that we don't have to add new handshake messages
for every new feature?


-Martin