Subject: Re: [TLS] whither draft-agl-tls-nextprotoneg? EncryptedExtensions? (was: Update on Origin-Bound Certificates: Now called "Channel ID")

From: =JeffH <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 14:28:14 -0700

AGL replied..

 > On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 5:01 PM, =JeffH <[email-masked]> wrote:
 >> After perusing both draft-agl-tls-nextprotoneg and
 >> draft-balfanz-tls-channelid,
 >> I tend to agree with PaulH that EncryptedExtensions ought to be a
 >> stand-alone spec that is referenced by TLS extension specs as needed.
 >
 > I think the feeling at Orlando was that people didn't want to do
 > EncryptedExtensions. Rather they wanted something more general.

hm, i had the impression during that discussion that the overall concern was 
with having (specifically) next-proto-negotiation in the clear, rather than 
objections to EncryptedExtensions per se.

=JeffH