On 08/14/2017 01:26 PM, Ilari Liusvaara wrote: > On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 08:03:08PM +0200, Hubert Kario wrote: >> Current (21) draft references RFC 6961 in multiple places, in particular >> * Section 4.4.2: >> Valid extensions >> include OCSP Status extensions ([RFC6066] and [RFC6961]) >> * and therein implicitly: >> If >> an extension applies to the entire chain, it SHOULD be included in >> the first CertificateEntry. >> >> at the same time section B.3.1 ExtensionType and table from Section 4.2 do >> not >> list status_request_v2 as a valid extension. >> >> >> If the intention was to deprecate status_request_v2, I think the references >> to >> RFC 6961 should be a bit more cautious. If it wasn't (as old messages sent >> to >> the list would indicate), quite a bit of text is missing. > The introduction suggests that TLS 1.3 intends to deprecate > status_request_v2. >
Yes, the intention was to deprecate status_request_v2. -Ben
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
