> On Jan 31, 2018, at 16:41, Benjamin Kaduk <bka...@akamai.com> wrote: > >> I also wondered whether there was any sense in reserving codepoint 0 (of >> CertificateCompressionAlgorithm) for "uncompressed". I guess not, since >> support for uncompressed certificates is implicit by means of not using >> the extension. But sometimes keeping value 0 (basically) reserved is >> still useful. >> >> I've considered that, but decided that this would just introduce two ways to >> do >> the same thing (send certificate uncompressed), so I decided against it. > > Sure. I don't see a reason to add a code point for uncompressed, but maybe > there is an aesthetic argument for leaving 0 reserved entirely. But I > definitely do not insist on anything.
We could just reserve it and not assign any meaning to it. spt _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
