Re: [CHANNEL-BINDING] [TLS] draft-altman-tls-channel-bindings-10 -- better text on syncproblem

Nico

You've still got a reference that needs changing
"   Subsequent to the publication of "On Channel Bindings" [RFC5246],
"
while in s.4
/specfication,/specification/
and s4.1
'updates to is channel binding'
should be 'this'?
Tom Petch

----- Original Message -----
From: "Nicolas Williams" <Nicolas.Williams@sun.com>
To: <channel-binding@ietf.org>; <sasl@ietf.org>; <tls@ietf.org>
Cc: "Alexey Melnikov" <alexey.melnikov@isode.com>; "Pasi Eronen"
<pasi.eronen@nokia.com>; "Mark Novak" <Mark.Novak@microsoft.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2010 7:52 PM
Subject: [TLS] draft-altman-tls-channel-bindings-10 -- better text on
syncproblem

> I've just posted draft-altman-tls-channel-bindings-10:
>
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-altman-tls-channel-bindings-10.txt
>
> I realized that the best way to avoid the synchronization problem is to
> simply not request re-negotiation on the server side during application-
> layer authentication.  I made that a MUST because there's typically an
> API by which server-side apps can request re-negotiation.  I made the
> client-side avoidance technique a SHOULD because the necessary APIs
> might be missing.
>
> With this change I'm happy to adopt the MSFT variant of tls-unique
> unchanged.
>
> Alexey,
>
> I believe that draft-altman-tls-channel-bindings-10.txt is ready for an
> IETF Last Call.
>
> Nico
> --
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> TLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls