Re: [TLS] WGLC: draft-ietf-tls-tls13-19

Yes, a proper "differences from TLS 1.2" section needs to be written to replace the draft changelog. Dave On Tuesday, March 14, 2017 05:31:18 am Yoav Nir wrote: > Hi. > > I will give the entire document a more thorough read, but I wanted to comment > on section 1.2 earlier. Its title is

Re: [TLS] RFC 6066 - Max fragment length negotiation

Hi Joe, thanks for pointing this out. I will talk to our mbed TLS team to find out what the status of this issue is. Ciao Hannes On 03/18/2017 10:17 AM, Joseph Birr-Pixton wrote: > On 17 March 2017 at 16:01, Hannes Tschofenig > wrote: >> Here are my 5 cents: we

Re: [TLS] RFC 6066 - Max fragment length negotiation

On 18 March 2017 at 20:36, Peter Gutmann wrote: > Incidentally, has anyone else who's implemented this dealt in the weird > omission of 8K by using the logical value 5 that follows 1, 2, 3, 4 for 512, > 1K, 2K, and 4K? In many cases 8K is just what you need, it halves