Re: [keyassure] Bare keys again

[Paul Wouters <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, 21 Mar 2011, Eric Rescorla wrote:

> [Speaking as an individual]
> IMO the requirements of 5246 are fairly clear here:

> In other words, when using any of the ordinarily certificate-based cipher suites
> (i.e., all the ones that everyone actually uses), it is not
> permissible either to omit the
> Certificate message or to have it be empty. This is not to say, of
> course, that you
> could not design an extension which would modify this behavior, but in the
> absence of such an extension, any server which does not send its certificate
> would not comply with RFC 5246.

That extension seems to already have been made in RFC 6066.

> [Speaking as TLS WG Chair]
> An extension along the lines indicated would change basic properties of TLS and
> IMO would need to go through the TLS WG, and certainly is outside the remit
> of this WG.

Didn't 6066 go through that process?

Should an errata be issued stating that RFC6066, section 6,
TrustedAuthority case "pre_agreed" is deprecated?

I do feel one of these choices has to be made. Either pre_agreed is a valid part of
TLS, or it is not. It cannot be both.

Paul