3 ms·
Yep. So maybe we should try and ship this as a variant of TLS where we strip out a lot of the negotiation and extra features and just say "TLS2 means you use X
by djcapelis 10y ago
Yep. So maybe we should try and ship this as a variant of TLS where we strip out a lot of the negotiation and extra features and just say "TLS2 means you use X, Y and Z."
I think it'd have a shot at being better than we've got now. And frankly, better than what TLS 1.3 is doing.
- yuhong 10y agoUnfortunately, the way it works in reality means adding ciphersuites is easier than adding new versions.
- tptacek 10y ago"Ciphersuites" simply should not be a thing. Each version of the protocol should hardcode one set of crypto primitives.
- wolf550e 10y agoWhat if people want AES-GCM on hardware with AESNI and CHACHA20-POLY1305 on all other hardware? Should those be two protocol versions that are both accepted by everyone and neither is planned to be deprecated? What about Ed25519 vs. Ed448? What if something was deployed with (SHA256 P-256 ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM), which Google promised to support for a long time, and now people want to switch to djb-blessed X25519-Ed25519-AES256-GCM, will the older ciphersuite be an old protocol version that everyone keeps supporting for >10 years?