On 19/07/17 18:10, Russ Housley wrote: > The hum told us that the room was roughly evenly split. In hind > sight, I wish the chairs had asked a second question. If the split > in the room was different for the second question, then I think we > might have learned a bit more about what people are thinking. > > If a specification were available that used an extension that > involved both the client and the server, would the working group > adopt it, work on it, and publish it as an RFC?
I would almost certainly be opposed. There are enough generic reasons to not break tls to go around for us all. S. > > I was listening very carefully to the comments made by people in > line. Clearly some people would hum for "no" to the above question, > but it sounded like many felt that this would be a significant > difference. It would ensure that both server and client explicitly > opt-in, and any party observing the handshake could see the extension > was included or not. > > Russ _______________________________________________ TLS mailing > list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
