RE: [TLS] Last Call: draft-ietf-tls-renegotiation (Transport LayerSecurity (TLS) Renegotiation Indication Extension) to Proposed Standard

2009-11-30 Thread Glen Zorn
Paragraph 3 of section 4 says: Because this cipher suite is equivalent to an empty "renegotiation_info" extension, only renegotiation_info" may be used rehandshakes. Leaving aside the incorrect punctuation, this doesn't make any sense to me. In section 5, suggest replacing all occurren

RE: [TLS] Last Call: draft-ietf-tls-renegotiation (Transport LayerSecurity (TLS) Renegotiation Indication Extension) to Proposed Standard

2009-12-01 Thread Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)
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, a

Re: [TLS] Last Call: draft-ietf-tls-renegotiation (Transport LayerSecurity (TLS) Renegotiation Indication Extension) to Proposed Standard

2009-12-02 Thread Tom.Petch
tf-tls-renegotiation (Transport LayerSecurity (TLS) Renegotiation Indication Extension) to Proposed Standard > On 09-12-01 12:19 AM, "David-Sarah Hopwood" > wrote: > > > The IESG wrote: > >> The IESG has received a request from the Transport Layer Sec