Re: [TLS] WGLC for draft-ietf-tls-ticketrequests

2019-11-15 Thread Daniel Migault
Hi Hubert, On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 12:33 PM Hubert Kario wrote: > On Thursday, 14 November 2019 18:18:52 CET, Daniel Migault wrote: > > Hi Hubert, > > > > The reason I would prefer the client to enforce the count is that if a > > client has constraints - memory / bandwidth, he wants to make sur

Re: [TLS] WGLC for draft-ietf-tls-ticketrequests

2019-11-15 Thread Hubert Kario
On Friday, 15 November 2019 13:00:14 CET, Daniel Migault wrote: Hi Hubert, On Thu, Nov 14, 2019 at 12:33 PM Hubert Kario wrote: On Thursday, 14 November 2019 18:18:52 CET, Daniel Migault wrote: Hi Hubert, I understand the reasons for SHOULD. At least this should be documented. To address

Re: [TLS] WGLC for draft-ietf-tls-ticketrequests

2019-11-15 Thread Daniel Migault
Hi Hubert, I do not understand why tickets sent after PHA would be useless. It is also unclear if not one solution means there are multiple good solutions - in which case we could pick one - or that there is not one. At least I would envisioned something around the lines below. For a given hands