On 10/12/2016 09:27 AM, Ilari Liusvaara wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 09:43:05PM +1100, Martin Thomson wrote:
>> On 12 October 2016 at 19:50, Ilari Liusvaara <ilariliusva...@welho.com>
>> Maybe we should require text for every extension that can appear in
>> the HRR: what to do if the extension is in the HRR, and what to do if
>> it isn't.
> Or have every extension be "no change" if not present, and do the
> specified thing to CH if prsent and known, abort if present and
This is an instance of the "require text for every extension" case,
though I think either would work.
> That would waste a bit of space with extensions signaling support
> for some rewrites if the server doesn't use those but retries the
I'm having trouble parsing this. The idea is that the client would
waste some space in the new CH because the server doesn't have a way to
indicate that the client only needs to send a subset of what it sent the
first time around?
TLS mailing list