Hi Nick,

given my discussion with Martin in this thread
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg21481.html I like
your idea of making the post-handshake messages optional since it allows
me to develop a TLS 1.3 client that is smaller in code size.


On 10/08/2016 03:03 AM, Nick Sullivan wrote:
> There has been a lot of discussion lately about post-handshake messages
> that do not contain application data and how to handle them. This PR is
> an attempt to make the story more explicit by adding a new
> post_handshake extension to TLS 1.3.
> Supporting all types of post-handshake messages can require extra
> complexity and logic, even when the features that these messages enable
> are not needed. Some types of connections/implementations don't need to
> support key updates (some unidirectional connections), session tickets
> (pure PSK implementations) and post-handshake client auth (most
> browsers). These are all currently SHOULDs in the spec and they don't
> need to be.
> In order to simplify the logic around dealing with post-handshake
> messages, this proposal makes support for each of these modes explicit
> via a new handshake extension. This change also makes the path to
> introducing other types of post-handshake messages in future drafts more
> explicit.
> PR:
> https://github.com/tlswg/tls13-spec/pull/676
> Nick
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> TLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

TLS mailing list

Reply via email to