On Wed, Jul 12, 2017 at 10:38 AM, Ted Lemon <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jul 12, 2017, at 10:32 AM, Richard Barnes <[email protected]> wrote: > > Oh, come on. You've never seen code in a library that implements > something that's not in an IETF RFC? > > > Of course I have. I think that putting a warning in the TLS 1.3 spec as > Christian suggested will mean that the code won't appear in places where > there isn't a strong use case for it. It may well appear in places where > there is a strong use case, but anything open source is going to face a > stiff headwind in terms of implementing this, and that's what I'm > suggesting we encourage. If it doesn't show up in openssl, gnutls or > boringssl, it's a much smaller problem. We can't actually stop it > happening—I'm just arguing for not making it convenient. > Knowing the people involved in at least some of those projects, there is very little chance of that happening. Beyond that lies political action, which is definitely not what the TLS WG mailing list should be used for. To your last email, I agree that we've mostly beaten this to death. I'm happy to let the conversation move elsewhere. Kyle
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
