Paul Hoffman wrote:
At 4:05 PM +0100 12/16/09, Martin Rex wrote:
I do not agree to your determination of rough consensus.
Are you saying that in general, or are you saying you intend
to appeal the decision? The two are quite different.
I believe this still captures my position adquately:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg05260.html
I do not think there has been a satisfactory decision
about the semantics of MCSV. Regrettably, I have added to the
confusion myself. by asking for overly strict semantics.
Without a specific proposal, I do not even see a base to
determine consensus, much less for an appeal.
One possible semantic that would address my technical issues
would be along these lines:
All conforming Clients MUST include the cipher suite value
TLS_RENEGO_PROTECTION_REQUEST in the cipher_suites list of _every_
ClientHello handshake message they send. This includes clients that
do not implement renegotiation or have it disabled. This cipher
suite value MAY appear anywhere in the cipher_suites list.
Conforming clients that compose an initial ClientHello handshake
messages with other TLS extensions, MAY additionally include
an empty TLS extension "renegotiation_info".
-Martin
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf