On Sat, Apr 25, 2020, at 11:38 AM, Yoav Nir wrote:
> See below.
>
> I think the next thing to do is to get a signal from the working group
> about whether we do or don’t want to allow unsolicited server flags,
> because prohibiting it will require a significant change in the draft.
>
> I’m
See below.
I think the next thing to do is to get a signal from the working group about
whether we do or don’t want to allow unsolicited server flags, because
prohibiting it will require a significant change in the draft.
I’m happy to make such a change, because I still can’t come up with such
Inline...
> On 7 Apr 2020, at 1:39, Martin Thomson wrote:
>
> I like this work, but I don't believe this to be ready yet.
>
> S1
> None of the current proposed extensions are such that the server
> indicates support without the client first indicating support. So as
> not to preclude
I like this work, but I don't believe this to be ready yet.
S1
None of the current proposed extensions are such that the server
indicates support without the client first indicating support. So as
not to preclude future extensions that are so defined, this
specification allows the
I re-read it. Ship it.
___
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
This is the working group last call for the "A Flags Extension for TLS 1.3"
draft, available at:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-tlsflags/
Please review the document and send your comments to the list by April 20,
2020. The GitHub repository for this draft is available at:
