On 8 August 2016 at 16:14, Ilari Liusvaara <ilariliusva...@welho.com> wrote: > In 2, I would imagine the context is probably usually a sequence > number of some kind.
The draft defines some rules for construction of identifiers that prevent collisions and the like. >> Good question. Errors in encoding or otherwise problems following the >> rules in the spec should result in a connection-level fatal error. >> But if the certificate isn't trusted, handling that will be up to the >> application. > > And that should presumably be communicated somehow... Of course. See https://github.com/grittygrease/tls13-post-handshake-auth/issues/18 (feel free to contribute) > Being able for application to to wait for certificate/cv/finised > message to be sent, so it can do something special in application > layer immediately after that. Sure. The usual async API guarantees apply here; I don't know that this needs special treatment in the spec though. If you disagree, I'm sure that my coauthors would be happy to take suggestions for improvements. _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
