Re: [TLS] Wrapping up cached info

Nicolas Williams <> Wed, 19 May 2010 17:59 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEA843A6AD1 for <>; Wed, 19 May 2010 10:59:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.124
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.124 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.126, BAYES_50=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Rty3lFdLd+5u for <>; Wed, 19 May 2010 10:59:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B55D63A6891 for <>; Wed, 19 May 2010 10:59:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id o4JHxQtW019986 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Wed, 19 May 2010 17:59:28 GMT
Received: from ( []) by (Switch-3.4.2/Switch-3.4.1) with ESMTP id o4JBjRtU009378; Wed, 19 May 2010 17:59:23 GMT
Received: from by with ESMTP id 251414671274291910; Wed, 19 May 2010 10:58:30 -0700
Received: from (/ by default (Oracle Beehive Gateway v4.0) with ESMTP ; Wed, 19 May 2010 10:58:30 -0700
Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 12:58:25 -0500
From: Nicolas Williams <>
To: "Kemp, David P." <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2010-03-02)
X-Auth-Type: Internal IP
X-Source-IP: []
X-CT-RefId: str=0001.0A090201.4BF42702.00AB:SCFMA922111,ss=1,fgs=0
Subject: Re: [TLS] Wrapping up cached info
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 May 2010 17:59:41 -0000

On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 01:43:52PM -0400, Kemp, David P. wrote:
> This will work as long as there is high "cache reuse ratio", i.e.,
> repeated handshakes with a server will not result in many cached objects
> of any type.

I think this is very likely.

> If multiple handshakes with a server could cache different objects of a
> given type, then the list in step 2 (client sends hash value of every
> object it has collected) could get very large and a more traditional
> cache miss approach would be needed.

I think this is unlikely.  I'm not sure how one might design an
extension to provide for caching that can handle this possibility
without adding round-trips to the handshake and without using HTTP (or
some such protocol) to fetch cacheable items.  The no-extra-round-trips
constraint is almost certainly non-negotiable.  Downloading cacheable
items out of band would greatly complicate implementations and would
introduce more failure points.

You might demand real-world data on cacheability and predictability of
caching opportunities.  But I think it should be fairly obvious that: a)
the items in question change infrequently, b) the handshakes between any
one {client, server} pair will generally all look the same, with very
few variations (initial vs. session resumption, outer handshake vs.
inner re-negotiation).  Moreover, clients could observe that use of this
extension provides no benefit and cache that to avoid using it
subsequently (much like rsync, the client could compute a "speedup"
ratio of data that would have been transfered to data actually