Subject: Re: [TLS] TLS Cached Info Status

From: Sean Turner <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 08 Oct 2013 17:40:47 -0400

Hannes,

Did you ever get any of the telemetry data?  If not what is plan b?

I'd like to see this draft progress soon, assuming there's wg support 
for it, or to officially have it declared dead.

spt

On 5/14/13 7:18 AM, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
> Hi all,
> I thought it would be a good idea to let the group know what the status
> of the TLS Cached Info draft is (since Rob just asked me a few minutes
> ago).
> You may recall that we had a discussion about the ability to not only
> cache a single OCSP response (as defined with RFC 6066) but also OCSP
> responses of intermediate CA certs, which is functionality
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-multiple-cert-status-extension/ provides.
> Rob raised this issue in his review, see
> http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg09352.html.
> To me it sounds reasonable to add the requested functionality and the
> pros & cons had been discussed on the list.
> When I met Ekr at the recent NIST workshop we briefly spoke about the
> TLS Cached Info document and how to progress it. He came up with the
> idea to use the Firefox telemetry feature to gather some data so that we
> can estimage the cache hit/miss ratio. With data we would obviously be
> in a much better position to make an informed decision.
> I hope that we get that data soon. If we cannot get it then we have to
> switch to plan B.
> Ciao
> Hannes
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>

---

From: Hannes Tschofenig <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2013 18:14:28 +0200

Hi Sean,

here is my plan B: we go ahead with the publication of the document 
without the proposed functionality since we have not gotten the data to 
judge whether it is a useful extension or not.

We can still try to gather the data and if it indeed turns out that the 
functionality is useful then there is always the possibility to add an 
extension; the draft defines a 'lightweight' way to provide new caching 
extensions.

I am going to refresh the document.

Ciao
Hannes