Re: [TLS] Adam Roach's Yes on draft-ietf-tls-record-limit-02: (with COMMENT)

On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 5:44 PM, Adam Roach wrote: >>> A server MUST NOT enforce this restriction; a client might advertise a >>> higher limit that is enabled by an extension or version the server does not >>> understand. > > It would, if it were present. The IESG is reviewing

Re: [TLS] Adam Roach's Yes on draft-ietf-tls-record-limit-02: (with COMMENT)

On 4/4/18 1:44 AM, Martin Thomson wrote: Hi Adam, Thanks for the review. You picked up on something that was a little sloppy there. PR: https://github.com/tlswg/tls-record-limit/pull/19 On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 3:58 PM, Adam Roach wrote:> Adam Roach has entered the following

Re: [TLS] Adam Roach's Yes on draft-ietf-tls-record-limit-02: (with COMMENT)

Hi Adam, Thanks for the review. You picked up on something that was a little sloppy there. PR: https://github.com/tlswg/tls-record-limit/pull/19 On Wed, Apr 4, 2018 at 3:58 PM, Adam Roach wrote:> Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for > §4: > >> MUST NOT

[TLS] Adam Roach's Yes on draft-ietf-tls-record-limit-02: (with COMMENT)

Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-tls-record-limit-02: Yes When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to