Sent from my mobile device
> On Mar 30, 2018, at 5:20 PM, Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com> wrote: > > Hi folks, > > TLS 1.3 has been approved by the IESG and it's on its way to the RFC Editor, > so > I don't really see this changing any time soon for the base RFC. > > I think there's some debate about whether this is a good idea, but in any > case, > the right way to pursue it would be to publish a new draft, presumably with > some extension that says "I speak extended alerts". > I agree with Eric’s assessment, this could be in a new draft as an extension. Kathleen > -Ekr > > > > >> On Fri, Mar 30, 2018 at 1:55 PM, Bill Frantz <fra...@pwpconsult.com> wrote: >> On 3/30/18 at 7:35 PM, pgut...@cs.auckland.ac.nz (Peter Gutmann) wrote: >> >>> As you mention, debugging TLS is unnecessarily painful if there's a problem, >>> you typically just get a handshake-failed alert which is essentially no >>> information at all. Having a debug-mode capability to send back a long-form >>> error message would be extremely useful, maybe an extension to say "send >>> back >>> a long-form alert with more than just 'BOOLEAN succeeded = FALSE' in it" >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
