On Thu, Mar 05, 2020 at 02:49:23PM -0800, Watson Ladd wrote: > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020 at 12:55 PM Nico Williams <[email protected]> wrote: > > .... unless both parties agree. It takes two to agree. > > As far as I am aware session tickets being single use isn't enforced > by any server right now: it's a desirable but theoretical property for > 0-RTT.
Is that so? Will that remain so? > My skepticism is entirely a function of this being a late breaking > [...] What is late breaking to you? The change was proposed during WGLC. If before or during WGLC is too late, when is it not too late? At WG work item adoption call? See also my post about feature matrix issues. > [...] > change to a relatively simple proposal, with not very much in the way > of quantifiable evidence to back up the concern that shared cache > contention is a big overhead. Is it 1%? .5? 10%? of the total time to > use a connection. At 10% we definitely need to do something, at .01% > we almost certainly don't. Right, but this is where the "Postfix architecture" issue comes in. I'm having a conversation with him about this. Viktor might be confused about the CoW properties of LMDB, but in any case, the wire bandwidth waste and server compute waste issues have nothing to do with Postfix's architecture/design/implementation. Nico -- _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
