Re: [TLS] Text for draft-ietf-tls-rfc4366-bis

Since we seem to have reached stable text, I have updated the draft
and will post a new version.

Thanks,
Donald
=============================
 Donald E. Eastlake 3rd   +1-508-333-2270 (cell)
 155 Beaver Street   +1-508-634-2066 (home)
 Milford, MA 01757 USA
 d3e3e3@gmail.com

On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 4:45 PM, Michael D'Errico <mike-list@pobox.com> wrote:
> I advocated this from the beginning, but others thought that it
> wouldn't be backward-compatible.  I was willing to accept the
> "MAY omit" as a compromise, but if we want to do it right, the
> client really does need to send the same SNI when attempting to
> resume a previous session.
>
> I think we should still keep the text that explains what a server
> should do IF the client omits the SNI when trying to resume a past
> session (use the same name that was sent in the original handshake).
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> Martin Rex wrote:
>>
>> Joseph Salowey wrote:
>>>
>>> After an offline discussion with Martin I think we really should remove
>>> the sentence " The client MAY omit the extension..." Omitting the
>>> extension seems like a really bad idea, because if the session is not
>>> resumed the client may establish a session with different
>>> characteristics than what was intended. So now we have:
>>
>> Thank you for you efforts.
>>
>> I'm fine with this clarification.
>>
>>
>> -Martin
>>
>> PS: maybe some others (in particular who discussed this particular
>>    topic) could provide their feedback so that Joe gets somewhat more
>>    than deafening silence to determine whether there is consensus.  ;-)
>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> TLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>