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

[Marsh Ray <[e-mail]>]

Martin Rex wrote:
> 
> 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.

+1, it sounds like slightly loose terminology. Someone could easily
think it referred to session resumption.

There's also another section of proposed text where it emphasizes that
every handshake must be considered independently of all others
(signaling RI I think it was). The term "rehandshake" could be taken to
imply that the same handshake is to be done again (whatever that would
mean).

- Marsh