Re: Busted TLS Schedule, and a Proposal for Closure

> I would like to suggest to Win Treese, the TLS-WG chairman, that we table
> the two proposals for now, and settle on moving SSL 3.0 into TLS 1.0 *as
> is*, however, with some clarifications to the spec.
> 
> I would like to see that early in November a small group of engineers who
> have actually *implemented* SSL 3.0 get together with the current SSL 3.0
> authors to clarify the spec. *Not* change the spec, only clarify any
> ambiguities (we have found in writing SSLRef 3.0, SSL Plus, and an SSL
> Fortezza implemenation a number of ambiguities, and I'm sure others have as
> well.)
> 
> This cleaned up spec would be called TLS 1.0 and published as an internet
> draft for final comments in time for the December IETF meeting in San Jose.

I concur.

There appears to be consensus for having separate specification documents,
one describing the Record Layer, the other describing the various messages
that ride on top of it. Several people have declared support for a modular
document structure, none have opposed it. Anyone opposed should speak up now.