Subject: [secdir] secdir review of draft-hoffman-tls-additional-random-ext

From: Samuel Weiler <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Jun 2010 00:37:05 -0400 (EDT)

I don't have much to add to the discussion of this draft (and the 
related draft-hoffman-tls-master-secret-input-01) that happened on the 
IETF list already.

At a first pass, I'm a fan of at least adding an applicability 
statement; the current draft doesn't say much to implementors about 
why they might or might not want to use this extension.  And, putting 
myself in those shoes, I think I'd find the existence of this draft 
more confusing than helpful.

And I observe quite a bit of opposition to publication of this doc on 
the IETF list.

-- Sam

---

From: Nicolas Williams <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 4 Jun 2010 14:09:15 -0500

On Thu, Jun 03, 2010 at 12:37:05AM -0400, Samuel Weiler wrote:
> related draft-hoffman-tls-master-secret-input-01) that happened on
> the IETF list already.
> 
> why they might or might not want to use this extension.  And,
> putting myself in those shoes, I think I'd find the existence of
> this draft more confusing than helpful.
> 
> And I observe quite a bit of opposition to publication of this doc
> on the IETF list.

Do the ADs need to see a summary of commentary on this (and the other,
associated I-D, draft-hoffman-tls-master-secret-input)?

Nico
--