Jim:
Thanks very much for your detailed review. Please see the comments below. We
will respond to your other emails shortly.
On 9/28/12 9:18 PM, "Jim Schaad"
mailto:i...@augustcellars.com>> wrote:
1. In section 3.2.3, it says that a new PAC can be requested after a full
TLS handshake. Can on
Jim:
Thanks for the review. Please see my comments below.
On 9/30/12 2:01 PM, "Jim Schaad" wrote:
>1. Should the Message Length field be present if the TLS Data field is
>absent?
[HZ] According to the text in the draft, the message length field should
only be present if the L bit is set, usual
Jim:
Please see comments below.
On 10/1/12 1:10 PM, "Jim Schaad" wrote:
>I found two that I forgot to include in the last message
>
>1. When exporting the user-id, does there need to be a way to distinguish
>at export time between the different types of ids that are authenticated
>by
>the serv
Jim:
Thanks for pointing out this issue. How about the following text with slight
modification with policy control from both sides to prevent downgrade attack.
Added text in red.
1. The first sender of the Crypto-Binding TLV needs to create it as
follows:
a) If the EMSK is not available, then i
