I don't see a problem with it. Understanding the muck at the bottom of that swamp is one of the principal concerns.
On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Tim Moses <tim.mo...@entrust.com> wrote: > Colleagues. There is a question over whether the results of Adam > Langley's work on anomalous bahaviour in common TLS stack implementations > is in or out of scope for the WPKOPS activity, and whether the draft > charter properly reflects the answer to that question. There have been no > objections that I am aware of to including the work. It merely remains to > ensure that the charter makes it clear. > > I propose adding the following statement to the list of example problems: > > "Finally, varying interpretations of the protocol specifications and > implementation errors result in interoperability failures and introduce > security vulnerabilities in the TLS stack." > > Do people think this is sufficient, or is a more radical rewrite called > for in which the emphasis is on TLS and its supporting infrastructure? > > All the best. Tim. > _______________________________________________ > wpkops mailing list > wpkops@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wpkops > -- Website: http://hallambaker.com/
_______________________________________________ wpkops mailing list wpkops@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/wpkops
