Re: [TLS] Review of draft-wouters-tls-oob-pubkey-00.txt

[Paul Wouters <[e-mail]>]

On Wed, 3 Aug 2011, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote:

> On 08/03/2011 06:01 AM, Paul Wouters wrote:
>> On Tue, 2 Aug 2011, Martin Rex wrote:
>>
>>> I find the idea of extending rfc6091 with a new certificate type
>>> for raw keys more appealing that a completely new TLS extension.
>> The TLS client still needs a way to convey this to the server, so that
>> there is a migration path from full CA bundle to public key. That is,
>> the client needs to be able to ask for "public key only" certificate type.
>> So I believe we would still need a new TLS extension, but not a new TLS
>> message type.
>
> And doesn't RFC6091 define the extension?

Ah yes, it does.

I would hope that the TLS WG would see enough of an interest to make a standard
track extension though. 6091 is an Informational. Could the draft be rerwitten to
use the 6091 cert type extension and still become a standards track document?

Paul