On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 12:36 PM, Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 9:24 AM, Kyle Rose <kr...@krose.org> wrote: > I don't really think it's really worth relitigating this; I'm merely > observing > that if you want high resumption rates then you want stateless resumption.
For a server pool, I completely agree. > As for the question of option space, I'm not persuaded it wouldn't > be possible to have stateless resumption with the same number of > round trip times if you were willing to be a bit more careful about > how you handled failure. I would be interested in an (OOB) conversation on your thoughts here. >> Agreed (though I am not sure Mirja will be happy to hear that). My >> comment about scope creep is simply that the WG came to a consensus on >> this topic (resumption tradeoffs) long ago, so I'm not sure we should >> be second guessing that judgment at IETF LC. > > I'm not sure what you think is being second guessed. I was referring specifically to the resumption tradeoffs (rate vs. performance). That said, all I can find is this: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tcpinc/current/msg00919.html which doesn't actually talk about that tradeoff, but rather about the charter's requirement for forward secrecy. > With that said, it's not clear to me that the WG actually did have consensus > that this brittleness was a good tradeoff. Was this property in fact widely > understood? Speaking only for myself, it really only came into focus for me > when I did my review. No, I think you're right that this wasn't widely understood, or at least not discussed. That wasn't what I was referring to, however: I do think the brittleness is worth at least discussing on the list (check) and seeing if there's consensus to make a change to the protocol or to add a crystal clear warning to the draft explaining the critical importance of not reusing SIDs. Kyle _______________________________________________ Tcpinc mailing list Tcpinc@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tcpinc
