Thanks for the discussion. We’re going to ask ekr to merge this one (obviously dealing with the additional input provided during the discussion).
J&S > On Sep 06, 2016, at 17:33, Sean Turner <s...@sn3rd.com> wrote: > > All, > > The chairs would like to get some eyes on this PR by this Friday (Sept 9th) > so that we can draw it to close. > > Thanks, > > J&S > >> On Sep 05, 2016, at 14:02, Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com> wrote: >> >> PR: https://github.com/tlswg/tls13-spec/pull/625 >> >> Currently the TLS spec requires implementations to send alerts under various >> fatal conditions. However, many stacks actually don't send alerts but instead >> just terminate the connection. Several people have argued that we should >> relax >> the requirement. >> >> At the September 2015 interim there was consensus to instead encourage >> sending alerts and require that if you send an alert, you send a specific >> one. >> I've finally gotten around to producing a PR that does this (link above). >> This >> PR: >> >> - Harmonizes all the language around alert sending (though perhaps I missed >> a couple of places) >> - Tries to make which alerts to send clearer in the alert descriptions to >> avoid >> having to specify individually how to handle every decision. >> - Relaxes the requirement as listed above. >> >> Note that these are to some extent orthogonal changes; even if we decide to >> continue mandating sending alerts, that should be listed in one location not >> scattered around the spec. >> >> I know that there wasn't universal consensus on relaxing the requirement to >> send, so I'll await WG discussion and the chairs decision on how to handle >> this PR. >> >> -Ekr >> >> _______________________________________________ >> TLS mailing list >> TLS@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls > _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
