Return-Path: X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0DE953A0A93 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 09:24:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -1.896 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.896 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mUmP47odPm4i for ; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 09:24:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail.smeinc.net (mail.smeinc.net [209.135.209.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF5093A0A90 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 09:24:45 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FE97300B67 for ; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 12:24:42 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at mail.smeinc.net Received: from mail.smeinc.net ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mail.smeinc.net [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id BYZWvOravLNW for ; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 12:24:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from [192.168.1.161] (pool-72-66-113-56.washdc.fios.verizon.net [72.66.113.56]) by mail.smeinc.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BEDD8300A3B; Thu, 4 Jun 2020 12:24:40 -0400 (EDT) From: Russ Housley Message-Id: <070E5A6D-7D2F-405A-B5D8-8C90379306D9@vigilsec.com> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_547FA8C8-2CC0-4864-A66B-9CE5F7EA2795" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 12.4 \(3445.104.14\)) Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2020 12:24:41 -0400 In-Reply-To: Cc: Martin Thomson , IETF TLS To: Eric Rescorla References: <20200604000011.387A5F4070F@rfc-editor.org> <73b5d3e2-d2f4-447c-84d6-0ae0a08374a9@www.fastmail.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.104.14) Archived-At: Subject: Re: [TLS] [Editorial Errata Reported] RFC8446 (6204) X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Jun 2020 16:24:47 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_547FA8C8-2CC0-4864-A66B-9CE5F7EA2795 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Eric: >> On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 6:07 PM Martin Thomson > wrote: >> I think that this is a useful erratum and it should be approved/HFDU. = The extension to which this text alludes is RFC 8773, not = post_handshake_auth. >>=20 >> Yes, although 8773 actually is not super-clear about post-handshake, = so that's actually something we should clarify there. >=20 > RFC 8773 is not intended for post handshake. So, I never thought = about that. What is the use case you are considering? >=20 > I don't have one. I'm just trying to make sure things are clear. = perhaps an erratum on 8773 to make ultra clear? I do not find it unclear. What do you have in mind? Russ --Apple-Mail=_547FA8C8-2CC0-4864-A66B-9CE5F7EA2795 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Eric:

On Wed, Jun = 3, 2020 at 6:07 PM Martin Thomson <mt@lowentropy.net> wrote:
I = think that this is a useful erratum and it should be = approved/HFDU.  The extension to which this text alludes is RFC = 8773, not post_handshake_auth.

Yes, although 8773 = actually is not super-clear about post-handshake, so that's actually = something we should clarify there.

RFC 8773 is not intended for post handshake.  So, = I never thought about that.  What is the use case you are = considering?

I don't have one. I'm just trying to = make sure things are clear. perhaps an erratum on 8773 to make ultra = clear?

I do not find it unclear.  What do you have in = mind?

Russ

= --Apple-Mail=_547FA8C8-2CC0-4864-A66B-9CE5F7EA2795--