Re: [TLS] Call for Consensus on removal of renegotiation

[Alyssa Rowan <[e-mail]>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

On 25/06/2014 21:03, Joseph Salowey (jsalowey) wrote:

> [Joe] to simplify:

I support 2: In favor of removing renegotiation with the addition of
rekey.

TLS <=1.2 renegotiation is hairy - but though it's not the most
commonly-deployed profile right now, rekeying is needed (for large
traffic volumes/long-lived connections, and potentially for
'ratcheting' the forward-security of connections?), as is
client-certificate authentication.

Happily, there are better ways of doing both of these than the current
renegotiation flow - so we can remove renegotiation as it stands, and
address these use-cases with better methods.

If we remove it otherwise, some people who need TLS won't be able to
use TLS 1.3, and I suspect that will be a barrier to adoption we don't
want.

- -- 
/akr
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=lM/d
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----