Re: draft agenda for San Jose meeting

Minor correction (it's late); sorry ...

> From david.brownell@Eng Tue Dec  3 01:28:23 1996
> Resent-Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 04:27:26 -0500
> Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 01:24:24 -0800
> From: david.brownell@Eng (David Brownell - JavaSoft)
> To: ietf-tls@w3.org
> Subject: Re: draft agenda for San Jose meeting
> Cc: satishd@doppio.eng.sun.com
> X-List-URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/ietf-tls
> 
> One more protocol issue ... I've never seen an explanation about why
> the "change cipher spec" record is necessary.  It seems like all that's
> needed is the ability to flush the handshake messages which have been
> queued, since I don't see any cases where the next legal handshake
> message isn't predictable from the current protocol state.

More like:  "I don't see any cases where you won't know that the
next handshake message from the peer must be 'Finished', even without
this 'change cipher spec' message."


> Is "change cipher spec" as a record type an artifact of some early SSL
> implementation, which might be removed in a "new protocol based on the
> SSL 3.0 specification"?
> 
> - Dave
> 
>