Dave Garrett wrote: > 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. >
Fine with that. Now that I think about it again; I'm also fine with the original proposal. The thing is 'insufficient security' has a nicer ring to it than 'unsupported XYZ'. Aaron
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
