Re: [TLS] Separate APIs for 0-RTT

2017-06-22 Thread Yoav Nir
> On 23 Jun 2017, at 5:10, Timothy Jackson wrote: > > +1 and a preference for MUST, just so people understand the importance. > > Since we're agreed that 0-RTT data and 1-RTT data have (almost) the same > security properties once the handshake completes, it seems to

Re: [TLS] Separate APIs for 0-RTT

2017-06-22 Thread Benjamin Kaduk
On 06/22/2017 09:10 PM, Timothy Jackson wrote: > +1 and a preference for MUST, just so people understand the importance. > > Since we're agreed that 0-RTT data and 1-RTT data have (almost) the > same security properties once the handshake completes, it seems to me, > unless I've missed something,

Re: [TLS] Separate APIs for 0-RTT

2017-06-22 Thread Timothy Jackson
+1 and a preference for MUST, just so people understand the importance. Since we're agreed that 0-RTT data and 1-RTT data have (almost) the same security properties once the handshake completes, it seems to me, unless I've missed something, that a lot of protocols will accept 0-RTT but withhold