[email protected]
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [TLS] Last Call: draft-ietf-tls-renegotiation (Transport Layer

Subject: Re: [TLS] Last Call: draft-ietf-tls-renegotiation (Transport Layer
From: Martin Rex
Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2009 03:49:57 +0100 MET
Stephen Farrell wrote:
> 
> 7. 6.2 says: "If servers wish to <<avoid attack>> they MUST
> NOT <<do stuff>>" Isn't that equivalent to servers SHOULD
> NOT? I think a SHOULD NOT is better. (And that's the form
> used in section 7.)


This might be confusion with ISO terminology.

   MUST       ==  SHALL
   MUST NOT   ==  SHALL NOT
   SHOULD     ==  RECOMMENDED
   SHOULD NOT ==  NOT RECOMMENDED


   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].


And btw. the document that standardizes the secure renegotiation
will have to say that it updates RFC-5246, because it needs to.


-Martin
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>