Re: [TLS] Please discuss: draft-housley-evidence-extns-00<

> In military varieties of this, the sessionid sticky state 
> controls which 803.11q vlan paths trunks that fragment can 
> go over...

Sorry: 802.1Q, above.

I was thinking about 802.11i, EAP-TTLS and then AEAP for 
TLS1.2 fragments going over a connectionless bearer, or TCP 
(with those 2**64 fragments under the AES-CCM "hold 
plaintext till the mac verifies" rule!)

But, its fascinating to watch SSL evolve for different 
embodiments, with distinct tunings to each type of 
engineering. I can finally see what motivates TLS1.2 now. 
And, it is good. I was wrong to argue against TLS1.2 
procedurally, I now see.

But, as Martin hinted: one has to read behind the lines too 
much, to really review the new features of the TLS spec 
these days. Its almost impossible to do a conventional 
requirements trace...so that the crypto feature justifies 
the mechanism, which justifies the service, which responds 
to the use case, which is appropriate for application sphere 
X, and the ciphersuites and their modes are appropriate for 
the implementation assumptions (UNIX thread pools, switched 
ethernets with PVLANs, NIC/port ASICs etc). Thus is getting 
ever harder to (a) understand the (implied) rationales, and 
(b) evaluate the technical proposals 

_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls