From: Martin Thomson <martin.thom...@gmail.com<mailto:martin.thom...@gmail.com>> Date: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 4:18 PM To: 'Quynh' <quynh.d...@nist.gov<mailto:quynh.d...@nist.gov>> Cc: Watson Ladd <watsonbl...@gmail.com<mailto:watsonbl...@gmail.com>>, "c...@irtf.org<mailto:c...@irtf.org>" <c...@irtf.org<mailto:c...@irtf.org>>, "tls@ietf.org<mailto:tls@ietf.org>" <tls@ietf.org<mailto:tls@ietf.org>> Subject: Re: [TLS] [Cfrg] Closing out tls1.3 "Limits on key usage" PRs (#765/#769).
On 2 March 2017 at 05:44, Dang, Quynh (Fed) <quynh.d...@nist.gov<mailto:quynh.d...@nist.gov>> wrote: OK. What is the percentage ? Even all records were small, providing a correct number would be a good thing. If someone wants to rekey a lot often, I am not suggesting against that. It will vary greatly depending on circumstance. Most of the time the record size matches the MTU. Other times it matches the write size, which can be only a small number of octets. For bulk transfers it can approach the record maximum. All on the same connection sometimes. I really don't know what you are suggesting here. The point is the accounting in terms of records doesn't really give you any insight into the number of blocks. Hi Martin, Thank you for the information. In the PRs’ discussions, I saw that Brian and Rich wanted blocks. You, Eric and other people were comfortably discussing the issue in term of blocks. Implementing and running TLS were your career, so I made suggestions based on blocks. Aaron wanted records, so I gave him the equation to figure that out. I did not mean to suggest to use records. Quynh.
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
