On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 1:09 PM Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 1:07 PM Rob Sayre <say...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 1:03 PM Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com> wrote: >> >>> On Mon, Oct 21, 2019 at 12:48 PM Stephen Farrell < >>> stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Not yet, that's true. OTOH, the 260 value wasn't decided on >>>> the list either that I recall. >>> >>> >>> IIRC it was there at the time of adoption. >>> >> >> Yes, it's there in https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-rescorla-tls-esni-00 >> . >> >> I think we should do better than "pretty sure it's right", though. >> > > I don't believe that's what I said. >
It is not. You said to look up the reasons for the requirements in the draft in the mailing list archives and GH issues. Stephen wrote: "PS: I think 260 is the right max, didn't look it up just now but I did some time ago and it seemed correct." thanks, Rob
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
