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

[Nasko Oskov <noskov at microsoft.com>]

Stephen Farrell wrote:
>Nasko Oskov wrote:
>>> 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.
>
>Sorry, I'm not clear on what's being proposed here. Is it:
>
>a) embed a new flag of some sort in a CA-issued X.509 cert
>b) add an additional server-generated self-signed cert containing
>   a new flag of some sort
>c) something else?

Yes. The idea is to have an specially defined "empty" certificate that will
indicate to the client support for the new running hash computation.

>I think (a) would be a bad idea. Not sure about (b) either, but at least it
>wouldn't bring a whole new bunch of parties to the table (CA product
>vendors and service providers) when something quick is what's needed.

(a) and (b) will be too complex of changes and unnecessary complications.

Nasko