On Monday, 17 October 2016 13:26:09 CEST Dave Garrett wrote: > On Monday, October 17, 2016 01:04:18 pm Martin Rex wrote: > > This list is already missing the warning-level "unrecognized_name" alert, > > and such a change would imply that all new/unrecognized alerts are going > > to be treated as fatal forever (i.e. that no new warning-level alerts > > can ever be defined). > > That's already true: > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tls-tls13-16#section-6 > https://tlswg.github.io/tls13-spec/#alert-protocol > "Unknown alert types MUST be treated as fatal." > > Changelog says this change was made for draft 14.
but unrecognized_name is defined (it's a part of MTI extension in fact), and any value defined by a new RFC automatically becomes a known alert Not to mention that implementations are not supposed to send unknown alerts unless negotiated by extension. -- Regards, Hubert Kario Senior Quality Engineer, QE BaseOS Security team Web: www.cz.redhat.com Red Hat Czech s.r.o., Purkyňova 99/71, 612 45, Brno, Czech Republic
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls