On Thursday, 19 January 2017 13:31:31 CET Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > On 01/18/2017 04:49 PM, David Benjamin wrote: > > Do people agree with this plan? > > Yes :) > > > I've left out psk_key_exchange_modes. It would be nice to GREASE that > > too, but it uses u8 rather than u16 values. The natural generalization > > is to reserve 0x?a instead of 0x?a?a. But then we lose 16 out of 256 > > code points, rather than 16 out of 65536 code points. Do people feel > > this is an acceptable tradeoff? Perhaps a smaller pattern? Or is this > > not worth bothering with? > > I feel like we're unlikely to come up with enough modes that we run out > of space, so it is probably okay to grease it. But I would be okay if > people wanted to not do so, too. > > -Ben
+1 to greasing psk_key_exchange_modes -- Regards, Hubert Kario Senior Quality Engineer, QE BaseOS Security team Web: www.cz.redhat.com Red Hat Czech s.r.o., Purkyňova 99/71, 612 45, Brno, Czech Republic
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
