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

[Stefan Santesson <stefan at aaa-sec.com>]

I would support an entirely different proposal that supports SSLv3 -> TLS
1.2 using a common approach, I.e. Not using TLS extensions.

The condition is that the implementer community can agree on such approach
within a reasonable timeframe.

In absence of such agreement, I would support this draft.

/Stefan



On 09-11-20 10:53 PM, "Joseph Salowey (jsalowey)" <jsalowey at cisco.com>
wrote:

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