Re: [TLS] WGLC for draft-ietf-tls-rfc4492bis

Hi Rich,

I am confused by your response.

For those who missed CURDLE, could you please briefly explain why we 
don't need signature context in non-TLS areas.

And even if this is the case, the current thread is about TLS! So why 
are we now saying that contexts are not needed even for TLS?

Thanks,
	Yaron

On 20/11/16 13:21, Salz, Rich wrote:
> In CURDLE this week, we had consensus (to be confirmed on the list, of course) that
> 	Signature contexts were created in the TLS arena, we all thought we needed them in other areas, and we don't, therefore all CURDLE documents for those other areas will specify a zero-length context.
>
> FWIW.
>
> I agree with Yoav's message, for the reasons he states.
>
> --
> Senior Architect, Akamai Technologies
> Member, OpenSSL Dev Team
> IM: richsalz@jabber.at Twitter: RichSalz
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Sean Turner [mailto:sean@sn3rd.com]
>> Sent: Friday, November 18, 2016 6:56 PM
>> To: <tls@ietf.org>
>> Subject: [TLS] WGLC for draft-ietf-tls-rfc4492bis
>>
>> All,
>>
>> This is a working group last call for the “4492bis to Standards Track" draft
>> available @ http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-rfc4492bis/.  Please
>> review the document and send your comments to the list by 9 December
>> 2016.
>>
>> Note that we are particularly interesting in the issue Yoav raises in the
>> following message:
>> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/8Ec7jQqLr_3FrvQfuclllfozKZk
>>
>> Thanks,
>> J&S
>> _______________________________________________
>> TLS mailing list
>> TLS@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> TLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>