MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20200604000011.387A5F4070F@rfc-editor.org>
 <73b5d3e2-d2f4-447c-84d6-0ae0a08374a9@www.fastmail.com>
 <CABcZeBMswqW4rWGmTxwK_zUy0-anRt6PFPo_YK1zNhWQw7wtSg@mail.gmail.com>
 <F3357894-3045-44A9-B30E-8AD2DEB37DE6@vigilsec.com>
In-Reply-To: <F3357894-3045-44A9-B30E-8AD2DEB37DE6@vigilsec.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@rtfm.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2020 09:11:25 -0700
Message-ID: <CABcZeBOmRAFV9M1W6bmD8OCFcDpQmC+5M=4reRzMhjnpPHC4dg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com>
Cc: Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net>, IETF TLS <tls@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000009e035005a74467fe"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/AEBc5OJTA53CE8ZTKdxTwanjgXc>
Subject: Re: [TLS] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8446 (6204)
Precedence: list

--0000000000009e035005a74467fe
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 8:46 AM Russ Housley <housley@vigilsec.com> wrote:

> Eric:
>
> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 6:07 PM Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net> wrote:
>
>> I think that this is a useful erratum and it should be approved/HFDU.
>> The extension to which this text alludes is RFC 8773, not
>> post_handshake_auth.
>>
>
> Yes, although 8773 actually is not super-clear about post-handshake, so
> that's actually something we should clarify there.
>
>
> RFC 8773 is not intended for post handshake.  So, I never thought about
> that.  What is the use case you are considering?
>

I don't have one. I'm just trying to make sure things are clear. perhaps an
erratum on 8773 to make ultra clear?

-Ekr


> Russ
>
>

--0000000000009e035005a74467fe
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div dir=3D"ltr"><br></div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">=
<div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Thu, Jun 4, 2020 at 8:46 AM Russ H=
ousley &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:housley@vigilsec.com">housley@vigilsec.com</a>=
&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px =
0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div=
 style=3D"overflow-wrap: break-word;">Eric:<div><br><div><blockquote type=
=3D"cite"><div><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div dir=3D"ltr"=
 class=3D"gmail_attr">On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 6:07 PM Martin Thomson &lt;<a =
href=3D"mailto:mt@lowentropy.net" target=3D"_blank">mt@lowentropy.net</a>&g=
t; wrote:<br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0p=
x 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">I thin=
k that this is a useful erratum and it should be approved/HFDU.=C2=A0 The e=
xtension to which this text alludes is RFC 8773, not post_handshake_auth.<b=
r></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes, although 8773 actually is not super=
-clear about post-handshake, so that&#39;s actually something we should cla=
rify there.<br></div></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>RFC 8773=
 is not intended for post handshake.=C2=A0 So, I never thought about that.=
=C2=A0 What is the use case you are considering?</div></div></div></blockqu=
ote><div><br></div><div>I don&#39;t have one. I&#39;m just trying to make s=
ure things are clear. perhaps an erratum on 8773 to make ultra clear?<br></=
div><div><br></div><div>-Ekr</div><div><br></div><blockquote class=3D"gmail=
_quote" style=3D"margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204=
,204);padding-left:1ex"><div style=3D"overflow-wrap: break-word;"><div><div=
><br></div><div>Russ</div><div><br></div></div></div></blockquote></div></d=
iv>

--0000000000009e035005a74467fe--