Kyle Nekritz wrote:
>
>> This list is already missing the warning-level "unrecognized_name" alert,
>> and such a change would imply that all new/unrecognized alerts are going
>> to be treated as fatal forever (i.e. that no new warning-level alerts
>> can ever be defined).
>
> That alert is curren
It does not look like we have sufficient consensus to adopt this PR. While
there is some support for simplifying alerts by removing the alert level,
the current discussion raises some issues about the general approach.
1. Is it appropriate for all unknown alerts to be treated as fatal? (the
curr
On Wed, Oct 19, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Joseph Salowey wrote:
> It does not look like we have sufficient consensus to adopt this PR.
> While there is some support for simplifying alerts by removing the alert
> level, the current discussion raises some issues about the general
> approach.
>
> 1. Is it
On 20 October 2016 at 05:28, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>> 2. Are there cases, such as unrecognized name. where it is useful to
>> indicate that an alert is not fatal? If so how should this case be handled?
>
>
> I think this alert was a mistake :)
In NSS is to tolerate it, but it's an exception. I'
On 20 October 2016 at 13:18, Martin Thomson wrote:
> In NSS is to tolerate it
*(Learn to write fool) In NSS we tolerate warning alerts
___
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
