Re: [TLS] WGLC for draft-ietf-tls-cross-sni-resumption

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hiya,

On 19/07/2021 22:43, David Benjamin wrote:
> No. I'm saying there is a need for text around resumption and privacy,
> whether or not we publish this draft. There is a copy of the text to
> address it in both documents. The text applies equally well to both, thus I
> am satisfied with how this draft addresses the concerns.

Ack.

> 
> It sounds like you disagree with this reasoning because you are unhappy
> with that text. 

I've not considered the text in 8446bis.

I'm against this draft entirely, as it adds to our problems
(IMO, but not yours).

> Thus: what do you think are the privacy rules for TLS
> resumption? An alternate suggestion of "don't publish the draft" does not
> work, because having resumption in form means we need to consider this.

Of course that suggestion "works." It'd mean that this new
potential tracking vector doesn't turn into an actual one.

(We may still likely need more text in 8446bis about
resumption but that's different - were it precisely same
there'd be no need for this draft at all.)

Cheers,
S.