On Sat, 4 Feb 2023, at 01:40, Alan DeKok wrote: >> Should we state somewhere that the client can "effectively rollback the >> entire inner state machine" so Result TLV is not final for the whole session? >> >> Should the client be able to do this multiple times? > > I would say "no".
I really need to stop "mediating out loud" and seemingly posing questions for others to answer. I agree on both points, Result TLV should be final and is easy to explain to others. I suspect this could just be unilaterally changed as probably no one would have implemented this, if they had they probably would have done PAC support and/or Session Tickets which no one seems to have done. For situation where the client wants to start some inner methods it probably would have been a better (and significantly simpler) approach to not send a PAC/session ticket. Server policy would have then likely prompted a full sequence of one or more inner methods, >> Makes Ctrl-F a bit of a pain...do we think we should fix this up; personally >> prefer *with* the hyphen so I can steer results towards statements about >> TLVs rather than stand alone words? > > I would prefer without the "-". The name of the thing is > "Crypto-Binding". The type of the thing is "TLV". You wield the 'editor' hat, I suspect consistency is more important to everyone rather than which side of the fence to pick. Chers _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
