Provably involved, or involved setting an evil bit? On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 7:10 PM, Russ Housley <hous...@vigilsec.com> wrote:
> The hum told us that the room was roughly evenly split. In hind sight, I > wish the chairs had asked a second question. If the split in the room was > different for the second question, then I think we might have learned a bit > more about what people are thinking. > > If a specification were available that used an extension that involved > both the client and the server, would the working group adopt it, work on > it, and publish it as an RFC? > > I was listening very carefully to the comments made by people in line. > Clearly some people would hum for "no" to the above question, but it > sounded like many felt that this would be a significant difference. It > would ensure that both server and client explicitly opt-in, and any party > observing the handshake could see the extension was included or not. > > Russ > _______________________________________________ > 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
