>In any case, I don't think we should assign code point 26 to this extension. I
>recognize that you have existing implementations that happen to use it, but
>that's a result of the unfortunate decision to squat on a code point which was
>right in the way of near future assignments, and those implementations can
>change to the new code point. Of course, it might be useful to add a note to
>implementations of the compression draft as well.
I think, in the spirit of comity, we let 26 go to Peter’s draft.
/r$
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
