On 5 August 2017 at 06:07, Benjamin Kaduk <bka...@akamai.com> wrote:
> It is currently before 20170818, and I support adoption of this draft and am
> willing to review it as it progresses.
> I do agree with Ilari that limiting the ciphertext size seems to make more
> sense, but of course we can discuss that post adoption.

FWIW, I hope to merge PR #1 that addresses this point.  It isn't
perfect, but it keeps the happy path - those who don't pad more than
the minimum - happy.  We should discuss pros and cons, of course, and
I'd prefer to do that as an official WG product.

TLS mailing list

Reply via email to