Re: [TLS] TLS renegotiation issue

[Marsh Ray <marsh at extendedsubset.com>]

Michael D'Errico wrote:
>> Therefore, I think a protocol change is less invasive (assuming that
>> it is essentially free-for-all-uses IPR-wise).
> 
> Is there any issue with IPR?

It is my opinion that it is difficult to prove a negative statement, but:

* The proposed protocol extension is dirt-simple, possibly minimal even.

* The method used is similar to the public work on the channel bindings
(binding TLS session based on Finished message data).

* At the Sept 29 meeting, this same idea was proposed by several people
simultaneously.

* At the Sept 29 meeting, we made a clear statement of the expectation
for vendors to disclose any IP they thought might cover this. None
presented any.

- Marsh