Re: [TLS] Issue 16: Alert clarifications

[Martin Rex <Martin.Rex at sap.com>]

Bodo Moeller wrote:
> 
> This has nothing to do with RFC 2119 terminology.  RFC 2246 and later
> make specific statements regarding what the sender and receiver of an
> alert should do; this is where the RFC could have codified, in
> whatever form, this aspect of the distinction between fatal alerts and
> warning alerts.  It quite clearly doesn't say what we think it should
> be saying.

I disagree.  Search rfc2246 for "close" of the connection, and every
occurrence except for "Closure alert" explicitly references a prior
fatal ssl alert.


I don't see where the spec would permit or even suggest closure of 
the connection after any other ssl alert of level warning other than
"closure alert".


-Martin

_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS at lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls