On 17/07/2019, 17:42, "Thomas Fossati" <[email protected]> wrote: > My suggestion is we move that section back and point to RRC for the > "final" solution. This doesn't give complete internal coherency to > conn-id -- which is indeed suboptimal -- but the recommendation to > provide peer address update call-backs provides at least a way out and > looks to me like the least worse solution given where we are.
Just FYI, the current state of the confab between Achim, Philippe and myself is captured at: https://github.com/tlswg/dtls-conn-id/compare/master...thomas-fossati:address-validation-take-2 cheers, t IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
