Russ Housley <hous...@vigilsec.com> writes: >I do not think the TLS WG should take on any document that makes changes to >the TLS 1.2 protocol.
So how is that different from any number of other TLS standards-track RFCs, say, RFC 7627 (one of the ones referenced in the draft), which was adopted as a WG document and standards-track RFC? The tiny changes in this draft (adding one field to the ServerDHParams, using the full MAC for finished, and hashing the full hello instead of just one field in it) are pretty trivial in comparison to the aforementioned RFC 7627, or any number of other ones. Peter. _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
