Precisely. On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 2:42 PM Martin Thomson <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
