On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 10:42 AM, Adam Langley <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, May 24, 2018 at 9:52 AM Viktor Dukhovni <[email protected]> > wrote: > > It might still be prudent to get the new code point re-assigned. I > > can see some TLS-LTS stacks also supporting TLS 1.3, with TLS-TLS > > preferred when using TLS 1.2. > > It's also been pointed out that 26 collides with the value in > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-quic-tls-12#section-9.2, authored > by > Sean :) > > So we have a triple collision on 26, albeit with one candidate being much > more official. > > Sean: do you want to kick quic_transport_parameters off 26 then? Move it to > a high, random value until assigned? > I don't think it's a problem if QUIC moves. Let's just do a fast early code point assignment for that..... -Ekr > -- > Adam Langley [email protected] https://www.imperialviolet.org > > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
