On Tue, Mar 17, 2026 at 08:56:32AM -0700, Eric Rescorla wrote: > On Tue, Mar 17, 2026 at 8:01 AM Viktor Dukhovni <[email protected]> > wrote: > > FWIW, I just don't have the energy to object to every well-meaning, but > > counterproductive proposal. And it can be uncomfortable to uphold a > > minority view... > > > > I agree that reuse of keyshares across multiple connections should > > generally be avoided, which is the status-quo in RFC8446, but there are > > sometimes just exceptions. An unenforceable MUST NOT may feel like > > progress, but it may do more harm than good. > > "May" is doing a lot of work here. > > Do you have some actual substantive argument to offer?
The substantive argument is: if it isn't easy to even implement this requirement, and it's not fatal to security to not implement it, then why bother stating this requirement when a recommendation suffices? Nico -- _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
