> if the interpretation of "I know this _message_ _length_ is wrong because
> of
some other values I negotiated before, so I'll send illegal_parameter" was
correct, then overflow_error, decrypt_error and probably few others would
also
need to be replaced with illegal_parameter...
I think the rigorousness of error codes is not at the same level as the rest of
the document. I'm fine with that. I can understand why people developing test
suites are frustrated. To me, it's like people arguing about whether the "list
of errno values" in a syscall manpage must be completely comprehensive or not.
Old-timers might remember when djb used to rail against the fact that close(2)
could set errno to ENOSPACE when using AFS.
The WG spans a wide variety of views on errors and alerts. Some want to have
only one, "bad packet," alert. Some want to add a textual explanation option.
Woolgathering aside, I think the first sentence I wrote is 100% accurate.
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
