Re: [TLS] Re: Last Call: 'TLS User Mapping Extension' toProposedStandard

"Stefan Santesson" <stefans@microsoft.com> writes:
> Adding to Ari's arguments.
> There is one more argument why it would less functional to send the
> mapping data in the extension.
>
> The current draft under last call also includes a negotiation mechanism
> where the client and server can agree on what type of mapping data they
> support.
>
> If the mapping data is sent in the client hello, the client has no clue
> on what data the server needs unless prior knowledge has been
> established. It must then send all types of mapping data that it
> believes the server might need. This is less desirable than sending just
> the type of data the server explicitly has stated that it prefers out of
> the types the client has stated that it supports.
>
> While it would be technically possible to implement the same solution
> along with Eric's alternative suggestions, I don't think it has been
> demonstrated that it would provide any significant advantages.

I don't want to get into a long point-by-point here. Suffice to say
that I don't agree with either this analyis or Ari's. It would,
as I noted, have the advantage of actually applying confidentiality
for data you claim is sensitive while avoiding the need to declare
a new code point. I consider both of these to be significant advantages.

-Ekr

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