On Thu, Nov 21, 2019 at 10:43 AM Salz, Rich <[email protected]> wrote:
> Likewise, I am okay with the "could be amended" text but in fact I > slightly prefer a new message type, for safety reasons. > How should we determine whether future extensions are permissible in the context of this new message? For example, draft-sullivan-tls-opaque-00 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-sullivan-tls-opaque-00> defines a new extension that is valid in CH and ClientCertificateRequest, but is not valid in CR. Does it make sense to require future extensions that can be used in ClientCertificateRequest to include a new tag, "CCR", in the IANA TLS ExtensionType Value table <https://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-extensiontype-values/tls-extensiontype-values.xhtml#tls-extensiontype-values-1> ? In any case, we can address that when/if we get to it. Here's the new proposed text: https://github.com/tlswg/tls-exported-authenticator/pull/55/files
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
