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

[Michael D'Errico <mike-list at pobox.com>]

I support a different approach, which I documented in this message:

  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg04556.html

It is the same as what Martin plans to issue an an Internet-Draft.

I would be fine with modifying it slightly at the suggestion of Dr.
Stephen Henson to have the server return the "magic" cipher suite
in the ClientHello and to put the real cipher suite in the random.
This would avoid difficulties in trying to explain how the version
is modified, but not really modified.

I'm just as upset about needing such a hack as everyone else, but
the installed base has largely ignored extensions, so we can't
responsibly force them on everyone.

Plus, see how the RI extension is critically flawed anyway:

  http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg04582.html

Mike



Joseph Salowey (jsalowey) 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