Re: [TLS] Comments on draft-rescorla-tls-renegotiate.txt

[David-Sarah Hopwood <david-sarah at jacaranda.org>]

David-Sarah Hopwood wrote:
> Comments on
> https://svn.resiprocate.org/rep/ietf-drafts/ekr/draft-rescorla-tls-renegotiate.txt
> 
> Overall I think this draft is a good solution to the identified security
> problem.
> 
> The draft defines an extension that affects renegotiation, which might
> be perceived to conflict with RFC 3546 section 2.3:

Ah, I should have been referencing RFC 4366 section 3 -- but the
wording is almost the same:

   Note also that all the extensions defined in this section are
   relevant only when a session is initiated.  When a client includes
   one or more of the defined extension types in an extended client
   hello while requesting session resumption:

   -  If the resumption request is denied, the use of the extensions is
      negotiated as normal.

   -  If, on the other hand, the older session is resumed, then the
      server MUST ignore the extensions and send a server hello
      containing none of the extension types.  In this case, the
      functionality of these extensions negotiated during the original
      session initiation is applied to the resumed session.

and the same comments apply.

-- 
David-Sarah Hopwood  ⚥  http://davidsarah.livejournal.com

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature