[TLS] Re: 2nd Working Group Last Call for The SSLKEYLOGFILE Format for TLS

[David Benjamin <[e-mail]>]

Uploaded https://github.com/tlswg/sslkeylogfile/pull/22 to fix the typo.

On Fri, Feb 7, 2025 at 1:56 PM David Benjamin <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 7, 2025 at 1:55 PM David Benjamin <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
>> Accepting both labels gets super messy because then we have to make a
>> bunch of decisions like whether you output both labels on the logging side.
>>
>> But we can just do a bit of research here:
>> - In IETF land, EARLY_EXPORTER_MASTER_SECRET dates to the start of the
>> I-D, but...
>> - The shorter EXPORTER_SECRET name for the non-early secret dates to the
>> earliest proposals for TLS 1.3 here:
>> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1287711
>> - BoringSSL does not output this label
>> - OpenSSL does not output this label
>>
>
> Correction: OpenSSL outputs this label but uses EARLY_EXPORTER_SECRET. Had
> the wrong grep. :-)
>
>
>> - NSS outputs this label but uses EARLY_EXPORTER_SECRET
>> - Wireshark consumes this label but uses EARLY_EXPORTER_SECRET
>>
>> So I think EARLY_EXPORTER_MASTER_SECRET was just a typo and should always
>> have been EARLY_EXPORTER_SECRET. Unless there's any evidence that someone
>> actually relies on the EARLY_EXPORTER_MASTER_SECRET label (very, very
>> unlikely given both the history of early exporters and the history of this
>> SSLKEYLOGFILE integration), I think the answer is clear: No, we should not
>> accept both labels. We should simply fix it to say EARLY_EXPORTER_SECRET
>> and move on.
>>
>> David
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 7, 2025 at 1:33 PM Salz, Rich <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>> The question is really "should we accept both names?"
>>>
>>>