I disagree that the last call is premature. I realize that not everyone is happy with all aspects of the current document but a clear majority of people on the TLS list have voiced their support for it. I do not see any consensus that the existing approach is flawed, nor do I see evidence of an emerging consensus on an alternative approach.
This document fixes a serious security hole in TLS and so it is important to finish it in a timely manner. While a minority of the WG may feel that it this draft isn't exactly the way it would like, it does address the relevant security issue. I don't feel that waiting several more weeks to see if consensus forms around some other approach is likely to be useful. Joe (Speaking as TLS Working Group Co-Chair) > -----Original Message----- > From: ietf-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ietf-boun...@ietf.org] On > Behalf Of Yoav Nir > Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 2:06 AM > To: ietf@ietf.org > Cc: t...@ietf.org Group > Subject: Re: [TLS] Last Call: draft-ietf-tls-renegotiation > (Transport LayerSecurity (TLS) Renegotiation Indication > Extension) to Proposed Standard > > > On Nov 30, 2009, at 5:37 PM, The IESG wrote: > > > The IESG has received a request from the Transport Layer Security WG > > (tls) to consider the following document: > > > > - 'Transport Layer Security (TLS) Renegotiation Indication > Extension ' > > <draft-ietf-tls-renegotiation-01.txt> as a Proposed Standard > > > > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, > and solicits > > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to > > the ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2009-12-14. > Exceptionally, comments > > may be sent to i...@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain > > the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting. > > I oppose publishing the current draft. > > There are two unresolved issues still being discussed on the > TLS mailing list: > 1. non-extension signaling for older versions (SSLv3 and > maybe TLS 1.0) 2. explicit vs implicit addition of old > verify_data to the PRF (also known as fail-unsafe vs fail-safe) > > I think the WG is converging, and that a couple of more weeks > of discussion may lead to consensus. > > I agree with David-Sarah Hopwood that a last call (WG or > IETF) is still premature. > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf > _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
