Re: [TLS] [CHANNEL-BINDING] RESOLVED (Re: [sasl] lasgt call comments (st Call: draft-altman-tls-channel-bindings (Channel Bindings for TLS) to Proposed Standard))

[Sam Hartman <[e-mail]>]

>>>>> "Nicolas" == Nicolas Williams <[e-mail]> writes:

    Nicolas> On Wed, Nov 04, 2009 at 10:24:29AM -0800, Michael D'Errico wrote:
    >> I don't pretend to know exactly what this feature is supposed
    >> to do, but I think using the word "connection" would be a
    >> mistake given its widespread use meaning TCP connections, etc.

    Nicolas> At least the word 'connection' is used in RFC5246 _some_
    Nicolas> times to mean what we were using it to mean here.

Sanity check here: For the most part, there is a one-to-one mapping
between what we're talking about and TCP connections, right?  In
particular, for most applications, even applications with multiple
finish messages, grabbing the first finish message from a TCP
connection gives exactly the one we want.  Am I correctly
understanding our goal?

If so, this sounds fairly pedantic.  Pedantic is not bad--we should
get it to be correct.  However for most app developers, it seems that
if they assume connection means tcp connection, the right thing will
happen.  If that's not true, then we have a lot of explaining to do,
because if I'm confused, then this is a hard problem to explain.