Re: [TLS] TLS 1.3 Authentication using ETSI TS 103 097 and IEEE 1609.2 certificates

[Hubert Kario <[e-mail]>]

On Monday, 27 August 2018 19:24:34 CEST Mounira Msahli wrote:
> One could abbrevate the handshake traces to just show the relevant
> parts (which could also cut some clutter)? I think the relevant
> messages always occur in the same order (clienthello, serverhello/
> encryptedextensions, certificate, certificate).

the draft doesn't change the order of messages, doesn't add new messages and 
doesn't change the place in which the relevant extensions are placed – so, 
what is the utility of duplicating the message flow from the TLS RFCs?

e.g. RFC 8449 and RFC 7685 don't, and they did define new extensions

> The table in section 4.2.  Extensions of [RFC 8446] (TLS 1.3) indicates the
> messages where a given extension may
> appear:
>  | client_certificate_type [RFC7250]                |      CH, EE |
>  | 
>  | server_certificate_type [RFC7250]                |      CH, EE |
> 
> But in RFC 7250 (TLS 1.2), the same extensions could appear in CH and SH.

correct, this RFC 8446 table applies only to connections that negotiated TLS 
1.3

-- 
Regards,
Hubert Kario
Senior Quality Engineer, QE BaseOS Security team
Web: www.cz.redhat.com
Red Hat Czech s.r.o., Purkyňova 115, 612 00  Brno, Czech Republic