Re: [TLS] draft-ray-tls-encrypted-handshake-00.txt

[Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <[e-mail]>]

On 05/07/2012 08:50 PM, Marsh Ray wrote:

> On 05/07/2012 02:47 AM, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote:
>>
>> Even with the three levels supported (zero,
>> one, two), if a client advertises required zero, requested two, should
>> the server assume that he supports one? What if the client only
>> supports level two and zero?
> I think that EH level one is such a clear subset of level two that it
> doesn't make sense to implement level two but not level one.

In that case, it should be clearly forbidden by this draft not to
implement one if two is implemented, and pretty much mention that
only the options 0, 1, 2 will ever be available. Otherwise if 10
years from now sbd adds 3 which is independent of 1,2 it may make
sense to support 3 but not 2.

I'd prefer however if the draft is flexible to allow future updates.

> Would we ever define more levels such that implementation support for
> them could sensibly be non-contiguous? It doesn't seem too likely to me,
> but should the need arise we'd probably have a new extension ID anyway.


I don't know. The future is hard to predict, so it may be better to be
safe than sorry :)

regards,
Nikos