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

[Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams at sun.com>]

On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 01:53:27PM -0800, Joseph Salowey (jsalowey) wrote:
> 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) 

I support this draft with only INFORMATIVE modifications about the fact
that this is "like an RFC5056 channel binding facility used with
tls-unique-for-telnet channel bindings data for the outer/previous
TLS connection, but it is not a generic-purpose channel binding facility
and may not be used for other channel binding types", plus an
informative reference to RFC5056.

I might support an entirely different proposal, but only if there's
consensus for it amongst implementors, or if there's strong consensus
that a different proposal is more likely to interoperate.  I've to
catch up with a week's worth of e-mail in order to determine which
proposal, if any, and whether any strong arguments have been made about
the [non-]interoperability of the RI proposal (but I suspect there have
not been any).

Nico
--