Re: [TLS] AD Review of draft-ietf-tls-tls13

[Bill Frantz <[e-mail]>]

On 5/22/17 at 10:46 AM, [e-mail] (Viktor Dukhovni) wrote:

>>On May 22, 2017, at 1:37 PM, Salz, Rich <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>I strongly believe the text should stay as it is, for the most good to the most people.  Viktor is in the weeds, arguably by himself.
>
>Right, all by myself...  With support from Nico, Ilari, and others who've upthread
>accepted that certificate verification is properly RFC5280 and not TLS, before I
>suggested removal of the text in question (which solves no real problem, but does
>create needless interoperability issues for various TLS use-cases).

Please allow me to add my voice to Viktor's. When I wrote the E 
language communication protocol, many people said I should use 
SSL. Some of the reasons we did not use SSL are in a 1998 
document <http://www.erights.org/elib/distrib/vattp/SSLvsDataComm.html>.

Our protocol started with a hash of the peer's public key. With 
that bit of information, other authentications are unnecessary. 
If I were starting today, we could use TLS with PSKs by asking 
the other side for it's key and then using it with a TLS library 
(I think).

Cheers - Bill

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Frantz        |"Web security is like medicine - trying to 
do good for
408-356-8506       |an evolved body of kludges" - Mark Miller
www.pwpconsult.com |