Re: [TLS] Redefine Finished message for TLS 1.3 ?

[Nelson B Bolyard <[e-mail]>]

On 2009-11-14 19:46 PDT, Marsh Ray wrote:
> David-Sarah Hopwood wrote:
>> Yes, but Michael's point was that changing the Finished message
>>
>> That's why a separate indication of patched status is needed
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> It's clear we're going to have to take a fresh look at this thing.

What makes that clear?

There will always be people with new/additional ideas, and always
people who grumble about the chosen answer.  Have we found an
insurmountable obstacle?  There are now something like 5 known
interoperable implementations of EKR's draft.  I think those of us with
those implementations are essentially just waiting now for an official
code point for the RI extension to be allocated by the IANA.  Do we
really want to toss all that for plan B?

> I've worked up some additional requirements that we've come to
> understand. To follow in its own email.

OK, will read with interest.