On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 6:00 PM Benjamin Kaduk <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 09:25:19PM +0300, Ilari Liusvaara wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 10:48:55AM -0700, [email protected] wrote: > > > > > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts > > > directories. > > > This draft is a work item of the Transport Layer Security WG of the IETF. > > > > > > Title : A Flags Extension for TLS 1.3 > > > Author : Yoav Nir > > > Filename : draft-ietf-tls-tlsflags-00.txt > > > Pages : 6 > > > Date : 2019-08-12 > > > > > > > > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is: > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-tlsflags/ > > > > > > There are also htmlized versions available at: > > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tls-tlsflags-00 > > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tls-tlsflags-00 > > > > Two things: > > > > > > 1) uint8 flags<0..31>; > > > > That adds an extra byte that is not technically necressary (because > > extensions have lengths anyway) and limits number of flags to 248 > > (which might be enough). > > > > And I do not think the length of flags field can be 0 (if it would > > I think you need to send it in at least one protocol "response", to > confirm support for the extension, even if none of the flags offered > require confirmation/echo individually.
I'm not sure this is the case: if in the future we define flags, then what is the difference between not understanding any flag and not understanding the extension? > > -Ben > > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls -- "Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains". --Rousseau. _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
