On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 11:00 AM, Shumon Huque <shu...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Feb 13, 2018 at 5:50 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thom...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 4:07 AM, Kathleen Moriarty >> <kathleen.moriarty.i...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > What's the behavior when the middlebox is a proxy, let's say existing >> > a managed network? I presume from from section 3.1 that this >> > negotiation doesn't work in that instance unless sites configured for >> > this are not subject to the proxy as is often done for financial site >> > access from corporate networks. It would be good to know if it does >> > work and that is addressed with the text Mirja calls out for her #1 >> > question. Having this clarified could be helpful. >> >> If there is a MitM, then this extension simply isn't negotiated. >> That's pretty well understood. I don't see why that requires special >> mention. > > > Yeah, I agree Martin .. this is the same as with any other extension.
OK, I think it is clear in the discussion with 1.2, but wasn't sure if it was clear enough elsewhere and figured it was best to ask. > > Shumon. > -- Best regards, Kathleen _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
