At 10:39 PM +0100 1/27/10, Martin Rex wrote:
>I have never seen an IETF AD fight so passionately for the
>addition of rfc-2119-violating and unreasonable imperatives into
>a document such as Pasi is doing it now.
The terms "fight" and "passionately" apply to others in the discussion
(certainly to
Bob Braden wrote:
>
> Martin Rex wrote:
> >
> > what do you want to say with this?
> > That implementors should ignore at least half of the MUSTs and SHOULDs
> > in IETF documents, because they don't make any sense, create unnecessary
> > interop problems or are otherwise harmful -- and should not
Martin Rex wrote:
what do you want to say with this?
That implementors should ignore at least half of the MUSTs and SHOULDs
in IETF documents, because they don't make any sense, create unnecessary
interop problems or are otherwise harmful -- and should not be in the
document in the first place?
I prefer publishing the specification as-is.
Additional comment:
The SCSV is a temporary fallback, one that will not be needed when clients
enter strict mode, since when that happens servers have to support the RI
extension. Its use should therefore be kept to the minimum needed to
prov
On 2010-01-27 07:37 PST, Martin Rex wrote:
> Yoav Nir wrote:
>> Actually it's easier to hard-code the ciphersuite list on the client,
>> because it never changes with most applications. Adding logic to
>> differentiate between initial handshakes and repeated handshakes
>> complicates the code (tho
Peter Gutmann wrote:
>
> Martin Rex writes:
>
> >That implementors should ignore at least half of the MUSTs and SHOULDs
> >in IETF documents, because they don't make any sense, create unnecessary
> >interop problems or are otherwise harmful -- and should not be in the
> >document in the first pl
Kemp, David P. wrote:
>
> Rationale:
>
> Version -01 states that the semantics of SCSV is identical to the
> semantics an empty RI, namely: "this client is capable of supporting
> secure renegotiation, and this ClientHello message is an initial
> handshake, not a renegotiation handshake."
But yo
Paul Hoffman wrote:
>
> At 6:57 PM +0100 1/26/10, Martin Rex wrote:
> >The two MUST NOTs that popped up in -03 are in violation of rfc2119 section
> >6!
>
> ...as are about half of all MUSTs and SHOULDs in modern IETF standards.
what do you want to say with this?
That implementors should ignor
pasi.ero...@nokia.com wrote:
>
> The detail in question is whether the "Signalling Cipher Suite Value"
> (SCSV) can be included when performing secure renegotiation (in
> addition to the renegotiation_info extension).
>
> Currently, the SCSV is not included. In the version that went to IETF
> Las
(1) I prefer publishing the specification as-is.
I've already changed my code to comply with the MUST NOT send SCSV
and RI in the same hello message, and have my server abort if it
sees both. So far nobody that has connected to my test server* has
sent both, and there have been lots of connec
I was not on your list, but:
(1) I prefer publishing the specification as-is.
-hs.
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
Yes. I agree that SCSV could be defined to convey only 1 bit of
information while RI conveys 2 bits, and agree that -01 (which went
through last call) does not define it that way.
What I don't understand is why the issue of changing the semantics of
-01 and -03 to reflect a "1 bit SCSV" is so #$%
Nelson B Bolyard wrote:
>
> On 2010-01-27 07:37 PST, Martin Rex wrote:
> > Yoav Nir wrote:
>
> >> Actually it's easier to hard-code the ciphersuite list on the client,
> >> because it never changes with most applications. Adding logic to
> >> differentiate between initial handshakes and repeated
Yoav Nir wrote:
>
> On Jan 27, 2010, at 12:50 AM, Kemp, David P. wrote:
>
> > Yes. I agree that SCSV could be defined to convey only 1 bit of
> > information while RI conveys 2 bits, and agree that -01 (which went
> > through last call) does not define it that way.
> >
> > What I don't understa
> -Original Message-
> From: m...@sap.com [mailto:m...@sap.com] On Behalf Of Nikos
> Mavrogiannopoulos
> Sent: Wednesday, 27. January 2010 08:33
> To: Rex, Martin
> Cc: Peter Gutmann; ietf@ietf.org; t...@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [TLS] Metadiscussion on changes in
> draft-ietf-tls-renego
15 matches
Mail list logo
