Marsh Ray wrote: > > > > > No matter how hard I try, I can't find the security problem and I can't find > > the interoperability advantage. > > > > Hence, the "MUST abort" requirement seems like an unmotivated restriction. > > I'm not saying that we have to change the current draft, I'm just curious to > > understand the real benefits of this requirement. > > In a sense it allows a consistent definition of the semantics of SCSV: > The presence of SCSV is equivalent to an empty RI extension. Under such > a definition, the presence of multiple conflicting RIs (especially an > empty RI during a renegotiation) is clearly an abort-able offense!
Baloney. This ludicrous explanation is a silly excuse for a proven technical mistake. -Martin _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
