Re: [TLS] SCSV vs RI when both specified. Was: Updated draft

[Steve Checkoway <[e-mail]>]

On Dec 19, 2009, at 8:31 PM, Blumenthal, Uri - 0662 - MITLL wrote:

> The only purpose of any protocol is to allow entities to communicate  
> (under a given set of constraints). Thus every effort SHOULD be  
> invested to provide this capability whenever possible. If the  
> protocol spec demands aborting connection, it better have a damn  
> good reason to do so - and more substantive than "some Steve decided  
> it doesn't really matter to him if the peers connect or not".

My point was merely that publication and subsequent implementation of  
the fix is more important than worrying about the specifics of what  
happens when two signals are used (as long as it is clearly specified,  
of course). Others may feel differently.

> I'm shocked that nobody else seems to pick on this. Is it that mid- 
> weekend thing, or am I the only one who cares whether the peer would  
> establish or refuse connection?!


There seem to be roughly 20 emails in this thread and its predecessor  
"Updated draft" talking about this starting with <http://www.imc.org/ietf-tls/mail-archive/msg11433.html 
 >.

-- 
Steve Checkoway

     "Anyone who says that the solution is to educate the users
     hasn't ever met an actual user." -- Bruce Schneier