I see; that makes sense. An update has been submitted; thanks! —Sam On Mon, Oct 25, 2021, at 10:23, Alexey Melnikov wrote: > On 25/10/2021 15:21, Sam Whited wrote: > >> I don't think RFC 7677 actually does define a mandatory-to- implement >> channel binding, or am I missing something? > It doesn't change the MTI "tls-unique" defined in RFC 5802. Your draft > already updates RFC 5802, so I think it should similarly update RFC 7677. >> If it does, that would make >> sense as a good reason to update it. >> >> —Sam >> >> On Mon, Oct 25, 2021, at 09:44, Alexey Melnikov wrote: >>> As RFC 7677 only specifies use of "tls-unique" as mandatory-to- >>> implement, I agree that it should be updated to point to your draft. >>>> Maybe you could propose some text for how you think it updates 7677 >>>> or where you think a reference to 7677 would be appropriate and that >>>> would make things more clear? -- Sam Whited -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
