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 14:01:56 -0700

AGL replied..

 > On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 8:30 PM, Paul Hoffman <[email-masked]> wrote:
 >>
 >> Is is possible for you to do a separate Internet-Draft on
 >> EncryptedExtensions, and then point to it from draft-balfanz-tls-channelid?
 >> I ask because there are probably other future extensions that will want to
 >> use that extension...
 >
 > EncryptedExtensions is also used in the NPN. I'd be happy to split it off if
 > the WG were to adopt something that required it.

So whither draft-agl-tls-nextprotoneg (in light of 
draft-ietf-tls-applayerprotoneg)?  Informational?

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.

HTH,

=JeffH

---

From: Adam Langley <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 17:05:38 -0400

On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 5:01 PM, =JeffH <[email-masked]> wrote:
> 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.

--
Adam Langley [email-masked] http://www.imperialviolet.org