On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 5:25 AM, Olivier Levillain <
olivier.levill...@ssi.gouv.fr> wrote:
> >> There were actually two points in my message:
> >> - I was not convinced by this way of signalling a preference without
> >> enforcing it, but I understand that, if we keep supported_groups, it
> >>
>> There were actually two points in my message:
>> - I was not convinced by this way of signalling a preference without
>> enforcing it, but I understand that, if we keep supported_groups, it
>> does not cost much and the client can safely ignore the server sent
>> extension;
>> - however, I
On Wed, Nov 23, 2016 at 12:19 AM, Olivier Levillain <
olivier.levill...@ssi.gouv.fr> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> >> Being able to send supported_groups does allow a server to choose to
> make
> >> a tradeoff between an extra round trip on the current connection and its
> >> own group preferences. One
Hi,
>> Being able to send supported_groups does allow a server to choose to make
>> a tradeoff between an extra round trip on the current connection and its
>> own group preferences. One example where a server might want to do this is
>> where it believes that X25519 is likely a more future-proof
On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Steven Valdez
wrote:
> Being able to send supported_groups does allow a server to choose to make
> a tradeoff between an extra round trip on the current connection and its
> own group preferences. One example where a server might want to do
Being able to send supported_groups does allow a server to choose to make a
tradeoff between an extra round trip on the current connection and its own
group preferences. One example where a server might want to do this is
where it believes that X25519 is likely a more future-proof group and would