Re: [TLS] Bakeoffs

[Alyssa Rowan <[e-mail]>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 16/04/2014 01:46, Trevor Perrin wrote:

> Maybe this argues for Adam Langley's earlier suggestion (also
> endorsed by a few others) that we focus on a TLS 1.3 that is a
> "tidying up" of 1.2, and push the larger goals (e.g. redesigning
> handshake for lower-latency or more encryption) to a TLS 2.0?

On reflection, I think I may favour this approach, yes:

• Keeping TLSv1.3 a cleaned-up v1.2 with better, faster, forward-secure
  baseline of fast, constant-time ECDHE and AEADs, legacy/broken lint
  removed, bugs fixed and downgrade protection, and getting that out
  fairly promptly;

  and,

• Following that with a TLSv2.0 process in which we look at the far
  more radical and challenging changes: handshake improvements,
  ClientHello/SNI encryption, perhaps a complete redesign.

If both are faster and higher-performing, that might help avoid delay
in adoption.

- -- 
/akr
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=ll+R
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----