On Friday 18 September 2015 00:58:19 Martin Rex wrote: > Easier troubleshooting is IMO a sufficient rationale to justify > existence of the alert mechanism and a "SHOULD send the alert before > closing the network connection". > > A "MUST send fatal alert" requirement, however, would be silly (and > will be void in face of rfc2119 section 6 anyway). What would be > the semantics of such a requirement anyway?
That's true only if you ignore the situation when TLS 1.4 or TLS 2.0 is deployed. So yes, it's no a direct interoperability issue, but it will become one in the future. The same way as TLS protocol version in Client Hello -- Regards, Hubert Kario Quality Engineer, QE BaseOS Security team Web: www.cz.redhat.com Red Hat Czech s.r.o., Purkyňova 99/71, 612 45, Brno, Czech Republic
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
