Re: [TLS] Next steps for draft-ietf-tls-renegotiation

[Nicolas Williams <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 11:26:34PM +0100, [e-mail] wrote:
> <wearing Area Director hat>
> 
> I have asked the secretariat to start IETF Last Call for
> draft-rescorla-tls-renegotiation-01.
> 
> I've gone through the list archives for the past month, and it seems a
> large majority of the WG members support the overall approach in this
> draft (with a small, but very vocal, minority preferring a totally
> extension-less approach to signalling).

I don't think that's a fair nor complete characterization of the current
differences of opinion.  A more complete and correct characterization
might be:

 - The RI proposal has a fail-unsafe requirement that peers check the
   contents of the extensions sent.

   NOTE: A fix for this wouldn't require an extension-less signalling
         solution.

   [IMO: This is serious objection that goes beyond protocol design
         aesthetics or ease of retrofitting for SSLv3.  I think we can
	 live without a fix for this problem, but I'd much rather have a
	 fail-safe solution.]

 - There seems to be a desire, among some, for a signalling solution
   that is somehow easier to retrofit for SSLv3 implementations.  This
   couldn't be an extension-less scheme, since some bits are needed to
   signal the use of the fix in the client's initial hello, but it might
   avoid the use of server hello extensions.

   [IMO: This is a concern that we can safely ignore.]

Nico
--