Hi, >> BTW, I do not really agree with your argument it should be done via TLS >> extension. > > It's done that way based on discussions on (and mostly off) the TLS list by > various implementers, that was the one that caused the least dissent.
I've followed that list for a while. What I find weird is that there should be much dissent at all. This is about increasing security based on adding quite well-understood mechanisms. What's to be so opposed to there? Does adding some ciphersuites really require an extension, maybe even on the Standards Track? I shouldn't think so, looking at the RFCs that already do this, e.g. RFC 5289 for AES-GCM. Just go for an Informational. FWIW, even HTTPS is Informational. It really boils down to this: how fast do we want to have it? I spoke to one of the TACK devs a little while ago, and he told me they'd go for the IETF, too, but their focus was really on getting the code out and see an effect before that. The same seems to be true for CT - judging by their commit frequency in the past weeks, they have similar goals. I don't think it hurts to let users and operators vote with their feet here. Ralph _______________________________________________ The cryptography mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org http://www.metzdowd.com/mailman/listinfo/cryptography