On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 03:41:34PM -0600, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > On 01/30/2018 04:02 PM, Victor Vasiliev 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.
Yeah, makes sense to keep 0 reserved. I made a PR for this: https://github.com/tlswg/certificate-compression/pull/12 and looks like Victor already merged it. Cheers _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
