On 9/9/21 9:16 AM, Alexey Melnikov wrote:
> On 09/09/2021 16:12, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 01:55:44PM +, Salz, Rich wrote:
>>
>>> I updated
>>> https://github.com/richsalz/draft-ietf-uta-rfc6125bis/pull/19 to have
>>> something based on Viktor's suggestion. The main w
On 09/09/2021 16:12, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 01:55:44PM +, Salz, Rich wrote:
I updated
https://github.com/richsalz/draft-ietf-uta-rfc6125bis/pull/19 to have
something based on Viktor's suggestion. The main wording changes were
about using MUST MAY SHOULD language in
On Thu, Sep 09, 2021 at 01:55:44PM +, Salz, Rich wrote:
> I updated
> https://github.com/richsalz/draft-ietf-uta-rfc6125bis/pull/19 to have
> something based on Viktor's suggestion. The main wording changes were
> about using MUST MAY SHOULD language in that whole section.
Works for me, I'd b
>This is most of what's needed. Plus something along the lines of:
I updated https://github.com/richsalz/draft-ietf-uta-rfc6125bis/pull/19 to have
something based on Viktor's suggestion. The main wording changes were about
using MUST MAY SHOULD language in that whole section.
_
This is most of what's needed. Plus something along the lines of:
In some cases the user should be able to accept the certificate in
question as valid also for subsequent connections. Such ad-hoc
"pinning" should typically not restrict future connections to just
On Wed, Sep 08, 2021 at 04:45:24PM +, Salz, Rich wrote:
> >Perhaps the text can be made more concise, but I don't think full
> removal is warranted. This is *not* the fragile key pinning from HPKP.
>
> Right now the text has this. Is more needed?
>
> ### Failure: No Match Found
>
>
>Perhaps the text can be made more concise, but I don't think full
removal is warranted. This is *not* the fragile key pinning from HPKP.
Right now the text has this. Is more needed?
### Failure: No Match Found
If the client does not find a presented identifier matching any of the
refe
On Wed, Sep 08, 2021 at 03:52:23PM +, Salz, Rich wrote:
> I would like to remove the discussion of pinning from 5126bis for the
> following reason:
[ You surely meant 6125, but let your fingers do the talking... ]
>
> * It’s an escape hatch, saying “do all these things but if you don’t
