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

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".

Personal curiosity - what kind of work do you do? (Feel free to answer in a private email or to ignore altogether.)

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?!

----- Original Message -----
From: tls-bounces@ietf.org <tls-bounces@ietf.org>
To: tls@ietf.org <tls@ietf.org>
Sent: Sat Dec 19 18:20:25 2009
Subject: Re: [TLS] SCSV vs RI when both specified. Was: Updated draft

On Dec 19, 2009, at 5:24 AM, Blumenthal, Uri - 0662 - MITLL wrote:

> You're saying it's not important whether the protocol spec demands aborting the connection or not?!  

As long as the spec is clear about what to do in that case (either abort or not), it doesn't really matter what the decision is. The code is about the same. The amount of testing is identical as far as I can tell.

> As long as the processing amount to arrive at the decision is about the same?

I don't know what this means.

-- 
Steve Checkoway

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