On 22/05/2020, 01:09, "Christopher Wood" <c...@heapingbits.net> wrote: > On Thu, May 21, 2020, at 9:22 AM, Thomas Fossati wrote: > > Hi Chris, > > > > On 21/05/2020, 17:00, "Christopher Wood" <c...@heapingbits.net> > > wrote: > > > *One proposal to address this is by extending the AAD to include > > > the pseudo-header. However, the chairs feel this is an unnecessary > > > divergence from QUIC. > > > > I don't understand the "unnecessary" in the above para, i.e., why > > are we so tied to QUIC in this case? I'm asking because it looks > > like this was a core criterion in the Chairs' proposal.
> Sorry for the confusion! The point here was that QUIC authenticates > what's on the wire, which we felt was important. I should have spelled > that out. There are of course other things to consider, as Martin > points out. OK, thanks for clarifying. I want to be able to use implicit CIDs so I don't support PR#148 as-is. As much as I'd like to go for a pure pseudo-header approach, I don't think I have enough data at this point in time that I'd feel safe going that way. Since adding implicit CID to the AD doesn't look like a big deal in terms of performance overhead, that would be my preference. cheers, t IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
