Daniel Kahn Gillmor dkg at fifthhorseman.net
Wed Dec 2 08:21:18 CET 2009

On 12/02/2009 01:15 AM, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote:
> Yes. The way to achieve that is to have people support it from the WG.

OK, and what is the current consensus of that WG about 5081bis?  can you
give me some pointers to discussion to read?  I only just subscribed to
the TLS WG today, and the recent archives are understandably flooded
with dealing with mitigation of the renegotiation flaw.

> No it is a TLS WG. I don't know the network working group header but it
> seems all TLS WG documents have it. Check:
> http://www.ietf.org/dyn/wg/charter/tls-charter.html
> for the TLS WG documents.

ah, ok.  thanks for clearing that up.

> I attached you in personal.

got it, thanks.  i'm looking it over now.  any reason to believe that
the source itself should not be public?  If i was going to take this
over and drive it, are there any licensing/copyright concerns i would
need to be aware of?



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 891 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: </pipermail/attachments/20091202/37a59c67/attachment.pgp>

More information about the Gnutls-devel mailing list