On 08/02/2016 09:32 AM, Bauer Johannes (HOME/EFS) wrote: > > So I take it my interpretation is correct -- these values are only ever > required for renegotiation and serve no other purpose? I.e. the hint can > safely be ignored in this case and the implementation will still be fully > RFC5746-compliant? > > All joking aside, this has seriously led to some discussions where > implementation of said RFC was rejected because of the overhead it might > cause. And even among some people who write SSL stacks for a living. > > So while, if the RFC is read correctly (it's "need", not "MUST"), this is > obvious, it really is confusing in practice. Since wide adoption of this RFC > is of interest to everyone, I think an official clarification might help > tremendously. Even if it's really obvious for people who design TLS :-) >
The next step is for someone to write proposed text that would be more clear. Maybe you have thoughts about how things could change? -Ben
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
