On Thu 2016-06-16 11:26:14 -0400, Hubert Kario wrote:
> wasn't that rejected because it breaks boxes that do passive monitoring
> of connections? (and so expect TLS packets on specific ports, killing
> connection if they don't look like TLS packets)
We're talking about the possibility of changing the TLS record framing
anyway, which would kill the simplest of those boxes. One theory is if
you're going to make such a break, you might as well pull the band aid
off in one fell swoop.
--dkg
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
