On Wed, 17 Mar 2021, 15:31 Jeremy Harris, <j...@wizmail.org> wrote: > 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? >
Which aspect of Section 6.1 do you think Google doesn't comply with?
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
