IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [TLS] draft-ietf-tls-renegotation: next

Martin Rex <mrex@sap.com> Thu, 17 December 2009 20:22 UTC

Return-Path: <mrex@sap.com>
X-Original-To: tls@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1C203A677C for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Dec 2009 12:22:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.197
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.197 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.052, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BVTM+7R3Qmbx for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 17 Dec 2009 12:22:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpde03.sap-ag.de (smtpde03.sap-ag.de [155.56.68.140]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D3E683A689B for <tls@ietf.org>; Thu, 17 Dec 2009 12:22:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.sap.corp by smtpde03.sap-ag.de (26) with ESMTP id nBHKM2NS006588 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 17 Dec 2009 21:22:02 +0100 (MET)
From: Martin Rex <mrex@sap.com>
Message-Id: <200912172022.nBHKM0Sx013218@fs4113.wdf.sap.corp>
To: Pasi.Eronen@nokia.com
Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 21:22:00 +0100
In-Reply-To: <808FD6E27AD4884E94820BC333B2DB774F31F777D1@NOK-EUMSG-01.mgdnok.nokia.com> from "Pasi.Eronen@nokia.com" at Dec 17, 9 12:30:49 pm
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Scanner: Virus Scanner virwal08
X-SAP: out
Cc: tls@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [TLS] draft-ietf-tls-renegotation: next
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: mrex@sap.com
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 20:22:23 -0000

Pasi.Eronen@nokia.com wrote:
> 
> Martin Rex worte:
> 
> > I do not fully agree with the AD's determination of rough consensus.
> > 
> > For the MCSV signaling, the real rough consensus is different from
> > what Pasi wrote:
> > 
> > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg05306.html
> > 
> > A mandatory Client->Server signaling through cipher suite may
> > have less fanatic followers by the count of numbers, but technical
> > advantages and _no_ technical objections have been raised against it.
> 
> Several people have very clearly and strongly objected to making the
> MSCV mandatory-to-include in ClientHello. You seem to be suggesting
> that their opinions don't somehow matter because they are, in *your*
> opinion, not "technical".

Well, I'm sorry, but it seems that I have totally forgotten
the technical arguments they were making, and I seem to be unable
to find it in my Email.

Since you just did that research for the determination of rough
consensus, you may still be aware of one or the other technical
argument and I would really appreciate if you could remind me,
so that I can address them in my draft--since they likely apply
to my draft.


-Martin

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email