On Thursday, July 23, 2015 06:49:06 am Aaron Zauner wrote: > I mean I kinda agree that 'insufficent security' is a misleading name, > but as it has been used for decades in TLS I'm a bit hesitant if it's a > good idea to change the name now.
Alternate bikesheddy response: what about renaming it to "insufficient_cipher_security" and adding a new "insufficient_dh_security"? That keeps the legacy naming, but modifies it to include actual specific meaning, rather than a total replacement. Dave _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
