Re: [TLS] RFC 4346 - TLS 1.2

Eric Rescorla <ekr@networkresonance.com> Tue, 02 May 2006 18:33 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fazgm-0001Po-05; Tue, 02 May 2006 14:33:36 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fazgk-0001Pi-03 for tls@ietf.org; Tue, 02 May 2006 14:33:34 -0400
Received: from raman.networkresonance.com ([198.144.196.3]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fazgi-0000O1-NN for tls@ietf.org; Tue, 02 May 2006 14:33:33 -0400
Received: by raman.networkresonance.com (Postfix, from userid 1001) id E4FC01E8C1F; Tue, 2 May 2006 11:33:28 -0700 (PDT)
To: Bob Relyea <rrelyea@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [TLS] RFC 4346 - TLS 1.2
References: <4457A4DE.9060209@redhat.com>
From: Eric Rescorla <ekr@networkresonance.com>
Date: Tue, 02 May 2006 11:33:28 -0700
In-Reply-To: <4457A4DE.9060209@redhat.com> (Bob Relyea's message of "Tue, 02 May 2006 11:28:46 -0700")
Message-ID: <86r73ctgxz.fsf@raman.networkresonance.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) XEmacs/21.4.19 (berkeley-unix)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 68c8cc8a64a9d0402e43b8eee9fc4199
Cc: tls@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: tls@lists.ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: EKR <ekr@networkresonance.com>
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.lists.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/tls>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@lists.ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@lists.ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: tls-bounces@lists.ietf.org

Bob Relyea <rrelyea@redhat.com> writes:

> The TLS 1.2 spec attempts to define more flexibility in the choice of
> hashing, and does fix a number of problems in 1.1 when wanting to use
> hash functions other than SHA-1 and MD5, however there appears to be
> wording left over from the 1.1 spec that seems to contradict this
> goal. Shouldn't this wording be removed or changes, or was it left in
> intentionally:

It's a bug.

-Ekr

_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls