On 16 October 2015 at 13:39, Brian Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > That would be especially true for an implementation that does False Start > for TLS 1.2.
I don't see how false start plays into this. We could have clients reject false start if they see this sentinel value. But don't we want to just treat this as an attack and abort instead? _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
