On Tue, Feb 22, 2022, at 09:09, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > I think (but don't have a solid recollection) that this may have > stemmed from a desire for the sender to know if the recipient supports > flags at all. But thinking about it now (and as Ekr's response > suggests), so long as we don't allocate flags for existing extensions, > there is not much useful to do with that information in cases where the > extension semantics of the flag(s) in question don't require a response.
Wouldn't it be possible to send the extension with an empty set of flags? We don't permit trailing zero bytes, but a zero-length sequence indicates support without signaling for any specific flag. _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
