Re: [TLS] draft-ietf-tls-cached-info-02 / New "Fast-Track" draft

[Brian Smith <[e-mail]>]

Stefan Santesson wrote:
> It seems like an unnecessary complexity.
>
> The original approach have two functions
> 1) Client informs the server what information it has cached
> 2) Server accepts caching and replaces the data with the hash provided by
> the client
>
> In the alternative approach this is expanded to:
> 1) The client tells server that it wants to cache data
> 2) The server provides hashes/identifiers of info the client may cache
> 3) The client signals that it has cached info with identifiers provided by
> the server
> 4) The server replaces cached data
>
> I see no reason to make the protocol any more complex than it need to be.
>    
In the alternative approach, there is no need to pass multiple hashes of 
the same item back/forth, so the syntax becomes simpler. Also, the 
client and server do not have to agree on a hash algorithm at all, which 
is a big simplification. The client doesn't have to calculate anything, 
which is a further simplification.

Many clients won't want to cache this information unless the server says 
that it supports the extension. That is why Adam Langley and others have 
asked for a ServerHello extension that indicates the items for which the 
server supports caching. It is very easy for the server to just stuff 
the identifiers inside that extension.

Regards,
Brian