Subject: [ietf-tls] RE: London

From: "Joseph Hui" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 20:27:07 -0700

> Does TLS intend to meet in London?
>
> The extensions draft is interesting, however I'd like to see it (or
> at least the dns_name stuff) codified into TLS 1.1.

This may mark the beginning of the third round of the
to-increment-or-not-to-increment-rev# debate.  
The previous two ended in tacit intransigence.  
So getting together and putting our feet down in London may hopefully
make a difference for the better, like: reaching a conclusion.

I too would like to see the dns_name extension codified in TLS 1.1,
with the understanding that it also applies as an immediate remedy
for 1.0, in hope to expedite its roll-out and adoption.  
(Currently there's no committed timeline for 1.1.  Heck, there's none
for 1.0 patches (ala extensions) either.  But I'm betting 1.0 patches
will most likely be faster out the gate than the iffy 1.1 may.)
Justification: With all due respect to the TLS/1.0 contributors,
I see the lack of virtual hosting support in 1.0 as an oversight.
So the dns_name extension is practically a "bug fix" that needs to
go into current web clients and servers ASAP.

> Rationale: a version rev is more visible, and more likely to get wide
> adoption in clients, which is needed to make dns_name worthwhile.
>
> --
> Mark Nottingham, Research Scientist
> Akamai Technologies (San Mateo, CA USA)

Joe Hui, Research Engineer
Digital Island

---
You are currently subscribed to ietf-tls as: [email-masked]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [email-masked]