Re: [TLS] Please be specific: RI alone, RI with MCSV, or MCSV alone

"Yngve Nysaeter Pettersen" <yngve@opera.com> Sat, 12 December 2009 18:33 UTC

Return-Path: <yngve@opera.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 9ABB33A6953 for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 12 Dec 2009 10:33:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.181
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.181 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.182, BAYES_50=0.001, 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 UdWxOKcvJM7Z for <tls@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 12 Dec 2009 10:33:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp.opera.com (smtp.opera.com [213.236.208.81]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AC853A6848 for <tls@ietf.org>; Sat, 12 Dec 2009 10:33:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from killashandra.oslo.osa (pat-tdc.opera.com [213.236.208.22]) by smtp.opera.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/Debian-5) with ESMTP id nBCIUsf7004493 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Sat, 12 Dec 2009 18:31:00 GMT
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 19:32:59 +0100
To: Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>, tls@ietf.org
From: Yngve Nysaeter Pettersen <yngve@opera.com>
Organization: Opera Software
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"; charset="iso-8859-15"
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <p062408c2c746ec9c71b9@[75.101.18.87]>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <op.u4t8g904vqd7e2@killashandra.oslo.osa>
In-Reply-To: <p062408c2c746ec9c71b9@[75.101.18.87]>
User-Agent: Opera Mail/9.65 (Win32)
Subject: Re: [TLS] Please be specific: RI alone, RI with MCSV, or MCSV alone
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: yngve@opera.com
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: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 18:33:15 -0000

On Thu, 10 Dec 2009 19:23:50 +0100, Paul Hoffman <paul.hoffman@vpnc.org>  
wrote:

> While following the numerous threads, it seems that some people are  
> advocating adding MCSV to RI, while others are advocating RI by itself  
> (no MCSV), while others are advocating MCSV by itself (instead of RI).
>
> Can people please be more specific which proposal they are advocating?  
> It greatly affects the conversation. Thanks!

I support the RI, with MCSV added since it appears to be necessary in some  
situations.

I do not support MCSV without RI.


-- 
Sincerely,
Yngve N. Pettersen
********************************************************************
Senior Developer		     Email: yngve@opera.com
Opera Software ASA                   http://www.opera.com/
Phone:  +47 24 16 42 60              Fax:    +47 24 16 40 01
********************************************************************