Re: [TLS] Consensus call for certificate URL extension

["Blumenthal, Uri" <uri at ll.mit.edu>]

Title: Re: [TLS] Consensus call for certificate URL extension

I agree with Yoav and vote for B.


On 9/23/08 02:49 AM, "Yoav Nir" <ynir at checkpoint.com> wrote:

> (B)
>
> I can live with A, but I don't like having deprecated extensions if we
> can avoid them.
>
> On Sep 23, 2008, at 7:52 AM, Joseph Salowey (jsalowey) wrote:
>
> > We need to close this open issue.  I think there are two basic options
> > that address the security issues that have been raised:
> >
> > A) Deprecate the current extension and create a similar new extension
> > with the hash mandatory.
> >
> > B) Make the hash mandatory in the current extension.  This should not
> > cause deployment problems because there are no known deployments that
> > make the hash optional.
> >
> > In either case, we can include hash agility as described in
> > http://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/tls/trac/ticket/46. If there is
> > support in
> > the working group for the use case where the certificate is updated
> > offline then we can possibly work on a new extension in a new document
> > that incorporates ideas expressed on the list.
> >
> > Please express you preference on the list for one of these options by
> > 10/6/2008.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Joe
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> TLS at ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls

-- 
Regards,
Uri
<Disclaimer>



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