Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-ticketrequests-02.txt

["Christopher Wood" <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, Oct 2, 2019, at 8:44 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> > On Oct 2, 2019, at 11:20 PM, Christopher Wood <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > 
> > Asking for one upon resumption seems reasonable to me. Thanks to you and Viktor for bringing up this case!
> 
> Thanks!  Much appreciated.
> 
> My other point, which I probably obscured in too many words, is
> that a client that prefers to re-use existing tickets, would
> normally want to ask for 0 new tickets, but this should not
> necessarily preclude the server from issuing one *as needed*
> (STEK rollover, ...).
> 
> So there is a difference between a signal that tickets
> are simply not wanted, vs. wanted only *as needed*.
> 
> Do you have any thoughts on how a client might signal this?
>
> The use-case is clients and servers that don't make use of
> early-data, and don't need to avoid traffic analysis.  For
> example, MTA-to-MTA traffic, where the client even identifies
> in clear text with "EHLO".  Here ticket reuse is the norm,
> and renewal is only needed as tickets age.
> 
> [ I hope I managed an suitably concise description this time... ]

You did indeed! However, as I'm not sure we should be encouraging ticket re-use. I think asking for 1 upon resumption would be the norm, which should address this case. (That is, I'm not sure adding more information to the signal to support the *as needed* case is worth the added complexity.)

Best,
Chris

> 
> -- 
> -- 
> 	Viktor.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>