> On 8 Nov 2017, at 2:25, Watson Ladd <watsonbl...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 4:05 PM, Jana Iyengar <j...@google.com> wrote: >> FWIW: In my experience middleboxes don't ossify based on what the spec says, >> they ossify based on what they see on the wire. So, if common >> implementations send CCS in a particular way, that's what will get --- and, >> I'll argue, what has gotten --- ossified. I also agree with David and Eric >> that compatibility mode shouldn't be required because QUIC doesn't need it. > > What does compatibility mode mean here? If we end up with having two > slightly different versions of TLS 1.3, one that looks more like TLS > 1.2 and the other that does not, that doesn't seem like a good thing > to me.
So you’d prefer that we just make this compatibility mode mandatory and always use it? Despite the wasted bits, I think I’m with you on that. Yoav _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
