Re: [TLS] Closing some open comments on draft-ietf-tls-renegotiation

[Martin Rex <[e-mail]>]

Eric Rescorla wrote:
> 
> 6. Explicitly state that this extension may also be used with
>    SSLv3 (we don't have any authority to update SSLv3 in any
>    way but we can certainly say that there is no technical
>    obstacle.)

What we're doing is giving recommendations to implementors what
to do in their implementations when protocol version { 0x03, 0x00 }
is negotiated.  We do not need any formal authority to do so.

I would suggest to mention the sizes of the SSLv3 finished
messages (36 octets), since these are considerably larger than
in TLS (12 octets).

> 
> 7. Clarify that RI MUST be generated in all rehandshakes, per the
>    issue Martin raised earlier and proposed resolution by Marsh
>    and Nelson.


Please add that this applies to _all_ handshakes, including
TLS session resumes, i.e. the Server must return the
TLS extension RI in the ServerHello of a TLS session resume as well!


I feel a little uneasy with the term "rehandhshake". 
I assume you refer to "renegotiation", i.e. a handshake that
is performed when the "current connection state" differs
from "no encrytion, no compression, no MAC".

I realize that the word "rehandshake" was added in one place to
rfc5246 -- but I still would prefer a single term only.


-Martin