Re: [TLS] Text for draft-ietf-tls-rfc4366-bis

[Michael D'Errico <[e-mail]>]

I advocated this from the beginning, but others thought that it
wouldn't be backward-compatible.  I was willing to accept the
"MAY omit" as a compromise, but if we want to do it right, the
client really does need to send the same SNI when attempting to
resume a previous session.

I think we should still keep the text that explains what a server
should do IF the client omits the SNI when trying to resume a past
session (use the same name that was sent in the original handshake).

Mike



Martin Rex wrote:
> Joseph Salowey wrote:
>> After an offline discussion with Martin I think we really should remove
>> the sentence " The client MAY omit the extension..." Omitting the
>> extension seems like a really bad idea, because if the session is not
>> resumed the client may establish a session with different
>> characteristics than what was intended. So now we have:
> 
> Thank you for you efforts.
> 
> I'm fine with this clarification.
> 
> 
> -Martin
> 
> PS: maybe some others (in particular who discussed this particular
>     topic) could provide their feedback so that Joe gets somewhat more
>     than deafening silence to determine whether there is consensus.  ;-)