On Wednesday, July 06, 2016 06:19:29 pm David Benjamin wrote: > I'm also curious which post-handshake messages are the problem. If we were > to rename "post-handshake handshake messages" to "post-handshake bonus > messages" with a distinct bonus_message record type, where would there > still be an issue? (Alerts and application data share keys and this seems > to have been fine.)
Recasting all the post-handshake handshake messages as not something named "handshake" does make a degree of sense, on its own. (bikeshedding: I'd name it something more descriptive like "secondary negotiation" messages or something, though.) Even if this doesn't directly help with the issue at hand here, does forking these into a new ContentType sound like a useful move, in general? Dave _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
