On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 8:41 AM Ilari Liusvaara <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 07:52:33AM -0700, Watson Ladd wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2019 at 7:35 AM Bill Frantz <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > A perhaps radical suggestion: > > > > > > Make the server name field fixed length e.g. 256 bytes. Longer > > > server names are not supported and clients MUST NOT send them. > > > (Both client and server can't use them because they won't fit in > > > the fixed length field.) > > > > The limit of server name in DNS is 260 bytes, so that limit already > > exists. No reason to shorten it elsewhere! > > Got a reference for the 260 byte limit? > > ... > > I can not find any justification for higher limit from any RFC updating > 1035 or 2181. And I would expect any such limit to have been > significantly above 253 bytes. > I found the rationale here: https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/pull/54 I think this explanation should be in the draft, too. thanks, Rob
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
