is even a
> word but I hope you know where I'm going with this...
>
> Saju
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-openssl-us...@openssl.org
> [mailto:owner-openssl-us...@openssl.org]on Behalf Of Eisenacher, Patrick
> Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 9:07 AM
> To:
acher
> -Original Message-
> From: owner-openssl-us...@openssl.org
> [mailto:owner-openssl-us...@openssl.org] On Behalf Of Saju Paul
> Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 4:24 PM
> To: openssl-users@openssl.org
> Subject: RE: SSL renegotiation clarifications
>
>
> Thank you
--Original Message-
From: owner-openssl-us...@openssl.org
[mailto:owner-openssl-us...@openssl.org]on Behalf Of Eisenacher, Patrick
Sent: Tuesday, February 02, 2010 9:07 AM
To: 'openssl-users@openssl.org'
Subject: RE: SSL renegotiation clarifications
Hi Saju,
-Original Message-
Fro
Hi Saju,
-Original Message-
From: Saju Paul
Who as in Sender-encrypter or Receiver-decrypter should renegotiate an SSL
session? Can it be both or is it only the Sender? Is there a document that
describes the protocol?
Does renegotiation always require SSL handshake? (SSL_do_handshake)
1. Who as in Sender-encrypter or Receiver-decrypter should renegotiate
an SSL session? Can it be both or is it only the Sender? Is there a
document that describes the protocol?
2. Does renegotiation always require SSL handshake? (SSL_do_handshake)
Are they any circumstances where the ha
