Re: [TLS] Naming that TLS session/connection instance thing

[Marsh Ray <[e-mail]>]

Nelson B Bolyard wrote:
> 
> The "thing" on which I wanted to hang the name "TLS channel" is (in some
> sense) defined by a cipher and a MAC and a pair of cipher keys and MAC
> keys.  It is uniquely identified (IINM) by the contents of a pair of TLS
> Finished messages,

Yeah, that.

> which is probably why the TLS channel binding proposal
> wants to use the contents of the pair of TLS Finished messages as its
> identifier (IINM).

Last I read it, the channel bindings proposal considered the "channel"
to be identified by just the first pair of finished messages on the
connection and it held constant across subsequent renegotiations.

> Every handshake creates a new one, regardless of whether the handshake is
> an initial negotiation or a renegotiation, and regardless of whether it
> does a full or abbreviated handshake (assuming that the client and server
> do not reuse their "client random" and "server random" values, of course).

Now that wouldn't be very random of them.

> I believe this is the thing to which Marsh was referring in his comment
> which I quoted in my original posting.  Marsh, please let us know if it
> is not.

OK then, I won't let you know that I think it is.

> (Oh, and winces duly noted. )

- Marsh