IETF Logo Mail Archive

[TLS] Consensus Call for draft-ietf-tls-renegotiation-00.txt

"Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)" <jsalowey@cisco.com> Fri, 20 November 2009 21:53 UTC

Return-Path: <jsalowey@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: tls@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C98303A6953 for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:53:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SWR6m1ATp8xx for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:53:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sj-iport-1.cisco.com (sj-iport-1.cisco.com [171.71.176.70]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 019583A67CC for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:53:34 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: sj-iport-1.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApoEAAOfBkurR7Ht/2dsb2JhbAC9KZdogjaCBgQ
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.47,260,1257120000"; d="scan'208";a="273498508"
Received: from sj-core-1.cisco.com ([171.71.177.237]) by sj-iport-1.cisco.com with ESMTP; 20 Nov 2009 21:53:28 +0000
Received: from xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com (xbh-sjc-231.cisco.com [128.107.191.100]) by sj-core-1.cisco.com (8.13.8/8.14.3) with ESMTP id nAKLrSQ9016870 for <tls@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Nov 2009 21:53:28 GMT
Received: from xmb-sjc-225.amer.cisco.com ([128.107.191.38]) by xbh-sjc-231.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.3959); Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:53:28 -0800
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 13:53:27 -0800
Message-ID: <AC1CFD94F59A264488DC2BEC3E890DE5092192D6@xmb-sjc-225.amer.cisco.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: Consensus Call for draft-ietf-tls-renegotiation-00.txt
Thread-Index: AcpqK+P+FJb7/ERHTaOcgXqgj6VcUg==
From: "Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)" <jsalowey@cisco.com>
To: tls@ietf.org
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 20 Nov 2009 21:53:28.0570 (UTC) FILETIME=[E4A5F5A0:01CA6A2B]
Subject: [TLS] Consensus Call for draft-ietf-tls-renegotiation-00.txt
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 21:53:35 -0000

We have had a lot of good discussion on this list, but I think we need
to start converging on a solution. As I said in a previous message, I've
asked Eric to serve as editor for the WG draft and he has posted
draft-ietf-tls-renegotiation-00 as a starting point.  I realize that
there are a number of people who aren't happy with aspects of the draft,
or indeed with the draft as a whole, but I'd like to get the sense for
the feelings of the group as a whole. If we have rough consensus that
this is a workable approach, we can try to nail down the remaining
issues and move forward.

To try to keep this concrete, please respond with answers to this
question:

Support for the draft:
- I support this draft
- I support this draft with the following modification
- I would support an entirely different proposal (please identify it; be
specific) 

If you are proposing a modification, in addition to providing a
description and rationale for a modification to the document it is
helpful to provide sample text of the modification. Also, please
indicate whether you would only support the draft with your modification
or whether you can live with it unmodified.  

Thanks,

Joe

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email