I disagree that the last call is premature. I realize that not everyone
is happy with all aspects of the current document but a clear majority
of people on the TLS list have voiced their support for it. I do not
see any consensus that the existing approach is flawed, nor do I see
evidence of an emerging consensus on an alternative approach.
This document fixes a serious security hole in TLS and so it is
important to finish it in a timely manner. While a minority of the WG
may feel that it this draft isn't exactly the way it would like, it does
address the relevant security issue. I don't feel that waiting several
more weeks to see if consensus forms around some other approach is
likely to be useful.
(Speaking as TLS Working Group Co-Chair)
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
> Behalf Of Yoav Nir
> Sent: Tuesday, December 01, 2009 2:06 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Cc: [email protected] Group
> Subject: Re: [TLS] Last Call: draft-ietf-tls-renegotiation
> (Transport LayerSecurity (TLS) Renegotiation Indication
> Extension) to Proposed Standard
> On Nov 30, 2009, at 5:37 PM, The IESG wrote:
> > The IESG has received a request from the Transport Layer Security WG
> > (tls) to consider the following document:
> > - 'Transport Layer Security (TLS) Renegotiation Indication
> Extension '
> > <draft-ietf-tls-renegotiation-01.txt> as a Proposed Standard
> > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks,
> and solicits
> > final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to
> > the [email protected] mailing lists by 2009-12-14.
> Exceptionally, comments
> > may be sent to [email protected] instead. In either case, please retain
> > the beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.
> I oppose publishing the current draft.
> There are two unresolved issues still being discussed on the
> TLS mailing list:
> 1. non-extension signaling for older versions (SSLv3 and
> maybe TLS 1.0) 2. explicit vs implicit addition of old
> verify_data to the PRF (also known as fail-unsafe vs fail-safe)
> I think the WG is converging, and that a couple of more weeks
> of discussion may lead to consensus.
> I agree with David-Sarah Hopwood that a last call (WG or
> IETF) is still premature.
> Ietf mailing list
> [email protected]
Ietf mailing list