On 17/03/2021 07:15, Ben Smyth wrote:
Perhaps one scenario where that behaviour is useful: An endpoint is about to be comprimised and raises an alert to avoid secrets being leaked.
I'd have tout that a section 6.2 Error Alert would be more appropriate in such a situation, than the (implicitly non-error) section 6.1 Closure Alert I'm discussing. Do you at least agree that Google is in violation of the 6.1 wording requiring that it sends a Close Alert before sending a TCP FIN? -- Cheers, Jeremy _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
