Subject: [TLS] Comments regarding tls-oob-pubkey was Re: 答复: Consensus for adoption of draft-wouters-tls-oob-pubkey-02

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2012 12:39:07 +0200

Hi Zhou, 

you had some comments embedded in your response to Joe's call for adoption and I only spotted them now. 

On Dec 1, 2011, at 9:28 AM, [email-masked] wrote:

> And currently there are two  unclear descriptions to me: 
>  1. Will client also send rawpublic key to server? 
>    although the aim of OOB is to reduce the size of transported server certificate, client will have to be affected according to this solution unless otherwise defined. 
>     

The idea was to allow the certificate payload to carry a raw public key. As such, the proposed extension can be used by the server and the client. Note that there will not only be a difference in the message size but also in the required code. 

>  2. What will client do on receiving  certificaterequest? 
>     Comparing received rawpublic key and stored public key bit by bit? But nomatterhow, definitly not " identical to the TLS specification" as described in this document.
When the client receives a certificate request, it supports the raw public key extension, and the ClientHello/ServerHello exchange had indicated so then the returned certificate payload will only carry the raw public key. 

We will make both points more clear in an upcoming revision of the draft.

Ciao
Hannes