Re: [TLS] TLS renegotiation issue

[Martin Rex <[e-mail]>]

Nicolas Williams wrote:
> 
> > Nicolas Williams wrote:
> > > 
> > > I understand.  The spec will just have to be updated to say that the
> > > finished messages (or at least the client one) are to be exported to
> > > applications.
> 
> Eric's view seems to be that the TLS spec should say nothing about this.

I fully agree with Eric.

IMHO, this proposal should become integral part of rfc5246bis.

For the channel bindings topic, in particular when it starts
discussing API issues, I personally would prefer when it
remains in a seperate document.


> 
> > The TLS-specs describe only bits-on-the-wire, protocol semantics
> > and TLS session state management.  The TLS specs are entirely
> > silent on API issues.  (The IETF does not do APIs, and GSS-API
> > is an exception.)
> 
> Wrong.  The GSS-API is NOT the only exception.  There's also SCTP, and
> probably a number of otheres (heck, even IDNA has an abstract API).

Well, OK.

While I was actively participating IETF meeting (1995-1998) it was
pointed out several times in IETF plenaries by IESG members that
the IETF does not do APIs and GSS-API was an exception.

I seem to have missed that this has changed.

-Martin