Paul Hoffman wrote: > > At 4:05 PM +0100 12/16/09, Martin Rex wrote: > >I do not agree to your determination of rough consensus. > > Are you saying that in general, or are you saying you intend > to appeal the decision? The two are quite different. I believe this still captures my position adquately: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/tls/current/msg05260.html I do not think there has been a satisfactory decision about the semantics of MCSV. Regrettably, I have added to the confusion myself. by asking for overly strict semantics. Without a specific proposal, I do not even see a base to determine consensus, much less for an appeal. One possible semantic that would address my technical issues would be along these lines: All conforming Clients MUST include the cipher suite value TLS_RENEGO_PROTECTION_REQUEST in the cipher_suites list of _every_ ClientHello handshake message they send. This includes clients that do not implement renegotiation or have it disabled. This cipher suite value MAY appear anywhere in the cipher_suites list. Conforming clients that compose an initial ClientHello handshake messages with other TLS extensions, MAY additionally include an empty TLS extension "renegotiation_info". -Martin _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf