>>>>> "Joseph" == Joseph Salowey (jsalowey) <jsalo...@cisco.com> writes:
[Joe] THis is a reasonable request. We'll need to make sure there is no ambiguity in the use of the empty message. Should this be covered in RFC 6677? RFC 6677 doesn't talk about how you decide you're going to do channel binding. I had mostly assumed you'd throw it in with some other message I guess, although once you consider crypto binding that gets more complex because you want CB after crypto binding some of the time. Note that I'm not requesting any specific behavior. I'm simply requesting that you document either that a server cannot request CB (must start with client) or document how a server requests cb. The message defined in RFC 6677 always has a code, so an empty message is clearly not a 6677 message. _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
