Re: [TLS] Updated draft

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

s/signalling/signaling/g

In section 4 it says:

    Because the SCSV is equivalent to an empty "renegotiation_info"
    extension, any ClientHello used for secure renegotiation MUST include
    the "renegotiation_info" extension and not the SCSV.

I would rather see the text say that "an RI extension takes precedence
over the SCSV" than to say that you must not send SCSV when you send RI.
It is easier for a client to simply include SCSV in every ClientHello.
It is also trivial for a server to handle this, as I pointed out in my
last message.

Mike



Eric Rescorla wrote:
> I've just submitted a new draft that is intended to enact most of
> Pasi's message as well as the noncontroversial editorial comments
> people have raised. Here is what I know still needs work:
> 
> - The final resolution to what's sent in the legacy renegotiation
>   case (see Pasi's message and the text I sent earlier).
> - New text for the identity section in Security considerations.
>   (Pending closure on the list).
> - Make a pass through for clarity for implementors. 
>   (Also, I have some text here that Pasi contributed that I
>   need to work in).
> 
> If you think you made a comment which is noncontroversial
> that didn't make it in and/or I screwed up incorporating your
> comment, please let me know and I'll try to fix.
> 
> For some reason, the submission tool is forcing manual 
> submission. In the interim you can find it at:
> https://svn.resiprocate.org/rep/ietf-drafts/ekr/draft-ietf-tls-renegotiate.txt
> 
> Thanks,
> -Ekr