On 01/18/2017 04:49 PM, David Benjamin wrote: > > Do people agree with this plan? >
Yes :) > I've left out psk_key_exchange_modes. It would be nice to GREASE that > too, but it uses u8 rather than u16 values. The natural generalization > is to reserve 0x?a instead of 0x?a?a. But then we lose 16 out of 256 > code points, rather than 16 out of 65536 code points. Do people feel > this is an acceptable tradeoff? Perhaps a smaller pattern? Or is this > not worth bothering with? > I feel like we're unlikely to come up with enough modes that we run out of space, so it is probably okay to grease it. But I would be okay if people wanted to not do so, too. -Ben
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
