Re: [TLS] Proposal for hybrid solution using most of the ideas

[Nasko Oskov <noskov at microsoft.com>]

Stefan Santesson wrote:
>On 09-11-19 8:52 AM, "Marsh Ray" <marsh at extendedsubset.com> wrote:
>> Stefan Santesson wrote:
>>> 
>>> What I don't understand is the rationale for providing two solutions, 
>>> when one solution could work for all cases.
>> 
>> TLS can support a nice, clean, efficient solution going forward.
>> 
>> SSLv3 needs an ugly dirty hack, no way around it.
>> 
>
>I disagree.
>
>I think we agree that an upgraded finished calculation is not a dirty hack.
>This is what future versions of TLS will use by default.

Agreed.

>Remains then the signaling C->S and S->C client.
>
>The RI proposal also includes the use of a magic cipher suite, so that dirty hack is in both proposals.
>
>Which leaves us with S->C signaling. Here I'm not sure we have exhausted all options.

Yes, we might be missing something else. The reason I picked the Certificate
message is that it is dynamic size by default, so we don't have to alter
existing data, just append.

>One way to approach this (and bring the proposals together) would be to use
>the same updated finished calculations in both approaches and just use the
>RI extension for signaling. In such case we could simply reduce this
>discussion to debate different ways to accomplish signaling for various
>versions of the protocol.

I realize I could've been more precise in my initial proposal. This is
exactly the essence of it. Finished calculations are the same across the
board, just signaling is different. TLS to use extensions, SSLv3 to use
whatever hack we agree on.

Nasko