IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: FW: [TLS] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-tls-rfc3546bis-00.txt

EKR <ekr@rtfm.com> Mon, 03 January 2005 17:39 UTC

Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA17202; Mon, 3 Jan 2005 12:39:17 -0500 (EST)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1ClWN1-0001JV-Gy; Mon, 03 Jan 2005 12:51:56 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ClW7g-0006cW-2p; Mon, 03 Jan 2005 12:36:04 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ClVtA-0000dH-BI for tls@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 03 Jan 2005 12:21:04 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA15142 for <tls@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 Jan 2005 12:21:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: from romeo.rtfm.com ([198.144.203.242]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1ClW5M-0000fs-Bh for tls@ietf.org; Mon, 03 Jan 2005 12:33:40 -0500
Received: by romeo.rtfm.com (Postfix, from userid 1001) id D62C917029; Mon, 3 Jan 2005 09:20:46 -0800 (PST)
To: Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <nmav@gnutls.org>
Subject: Re: FW: [TLS] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-tls-rfc3546bis-00.txt
References: <005f01c4ee85$03058150$c500a8c0@simon> <200501041858.07038.nmav@gnutls.org>
From: EKR <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Mon, 03 Jan 2005 09:20:46 -0800
In-Reply-To: <200501041858.07038.nmav@gnutls.org> (Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos's message of "Tue, 4 Jan 2005 18:58:06 +0200")
Message-ID: <864qhyo2dt.fsf@romeo.rtfm.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) XEmacs/21.4 (Security Through Obscurity, berkeley-unix)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Spam-Score: 2.0 (++)
X-Scan-Signature: 08170828343bcf1325e4a0fb4584481c
Cc: tls@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: tls@lists.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: EKR <ekr@rtfm.com>
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.lists.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/tls>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@lists.ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: tls-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: tls-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 2.0 (++)
X-Scan-Signature: 79899194edc4f33a41f49410777972f8

Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos <nmav@gnutls.org> writes:

> On Thursday 30 December 2004 17:34, Simon Blake-Wilson wrote:
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> We just posted an internet-draft updating the extensions RFC to deal with
>> the issue of which documents can define new extensions - the current RFC
>> allows only standards track RFCs while this draft allows any RFC based on
>> IETF consensus (which basically means IESG review).
> Since it is being updated I'd suggest to increase the number of valid values 
> for MaxFragmentLength. I think values for up to 2^16 would be ok. 

That seems like it might create an interop problem, no?

-Ekr

_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email