> On May 16, 2018, at 2:38 PM, Christian Huitema <huit...@huitema.net> wrote:
>
> Did you publish the proposed pinning draft already? That would certainly
> help clarifying the issue.
Only the proposed text defining the interim 16-bit field. The follow-on
specification has not yet been written. It has not to date been clear
that this would be helpful. A downgrade-protection extension could be
written now, but it'd a rather different document if the two bytes are not
present in this extension, so we're been waiting for the dust to settle.
Is there sufficient interest in seeing such a write-up at this time?
If that's what we're really doing, we could just bite the bullet and
produce the final document now, with the downgrade protection built-in,
revisiting the previous consensus around deferring that work. So I'm
reluctant to bring the details of the follow-on work into this discussion,
if that's not what we're doing.
--
Viktor.
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
