Yoav,
I think that’s right, i.e., update the patch branch and PR.
spt
> On Jan 25, 2021, at 16:04, Yoav Nir wrote:
>
> OK. I think we have as much consensus as we’re likely to get.
>
> I’ve updated the patch branch and PR to reflect this.
>
> Yoav
>
>> On 22 Jan 2021, at 7:45, Martin
OK. I think we have as much consensus as we’re likely to get.
I’ve updated the patch branch and PR to reflect this.
Yoav
> On 22 Jan 2021, at 7:45, Martin Thomson wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jan 22, 2021, at 16:16, Yoav Nir wrote:
>> See this PR: https://github.com/tlswg/tls-flags/pull/5
>
> It looks
On Fri, Jan 22, 2021, at 1:54 AM, Nick Harper wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 9:46 PM Martin Thomson wrote:
> > In other words, each flag is treated just like an empty extension: you can
> > initiate an exchange with it, but you can only answer with it if it was
> > initiated with it.
> >
> I
On Fri, Jan 22, 2021 at 1:55 AM Nick Harper wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 9:46 PM Martin Thomson wrote:
>
>> In other words, each flag is treated just like an empty extension: you
>> can initiate an exchange with it, but you can only answer with it if it was
>> initiated with it.
>>
>> I
On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 9:46 PM Martin Thomson wrote:
> In other words, each flag is treated just like an empty extension: you can
> initiate an exchange with it, but you can only answer with it if it was
> initiated with it.
>
> I agree that this is the correct guiding principle for handling
On Fri, Jan 22, 2021, at 16:16, Yoav Nir wrote:
> See this PR: https://github.com/tlswg/tls-flags/pull/5
It looks like there is lots of disagreement there. I'm going to disagree with
others too.
> All except the first are Server-side.
Certificate is client-side too.
> The controversy is
