On Mar 19, 2014, at 10:35 AM, Viktor Dukhovni <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 10:08:38AM -0400, Scott Rose wrote: > >> On Mar 18, 2014, at 4:00 PM, Viktor Dukhovni <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> My sense is that regardless, there is not much enthusias for >>> negotiating a single digest based on what digests the server offers, >>> with the client choosing its most preferred one. >>> >>> Is this an accurate summary of the group's consensus view? Does >>> anyone want to defend the view of TLSA digests as a menu of options >>> from which the client can choose one? >> >> Don't know about the rest of the WG, but it's mine. Some communities have >> a larger local policy that they want to enforce, and the client will prefer >> that primarily, with potential fallbacks. > > Sorry, could you confirm the meaning of the above sentence? Probably > my fault, but I am not 100% sure whether you're saying that clients: > > - should (proposed agility protocol) > - may (employ adaptive local policy that amounts to the above), or > - must not > The document should drop the algorithm agility text. RFC 6698 is enough IMHO. Scott > > -- > Viktor. > > _______________________________________________ > dane mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane _______________________________________________ dane mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dane
