On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 4:48 PM, Viktor Dukhovni <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > On Apr 18, 2018, at 4:47 PM, Richard Barnes <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I do not support adding a field to the protocol with semantics to be > defined later. Especially a 16-byte field, which is a fair bit of cruft to > carry around. > > The 16-byte is a typo. It was supposed to be 16-bit. My fault. Sorry. > Secondary point. Still don't think we should deliberately include undefined fields, e.g., because part of the discussion is whether 16 bits is the right size. --Richard > > -- > Viktor. > > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
