> On Jan 31, 2020, at 6:14 PM, Stephen Farrell
> wrote:
>
>
> Hiya,
>
> I have no particular position about this draft but
> am curious about 2 things:
>
> #1 I don't get why it's not possible for postfix to
> determine the best way to manage tickets based on the
> destination port to whic
On Sat, Feb 01, 2020 at 07:53:57AM -0800, Tommy Pauly wrote:
> Instead, it seems unclear what value the special use of 0 and 255 adds
> that wouldn’t be better served by a separate extension.
The benefit of the new value of "0" is *unambiguous* signalling that the
client would like to reuse the t
On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 5:30 PM Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 01, 2020 at 07:53:57AM -0800, Tommy Pauly wrote:
>
> > Instead, it seems unclear what value the special use of 0 and 255 adds
> > that wouldn’t be better served by a separate extension.
>
> The benefit of the new value of "0" is
On Sat, Feb 01, 2020 at 07:04:53PM -0800, Watson Ladd wrote:
> > The benefit of the new value of "0" is *unambiguous* signalling that the
> > client would like to reuse the ticket if possible, and the new "255"
> > then carries the "We don't need no stinking tickets" signal.
> >
>
> I'd be happie
On Sat, Feb 1, 2020 at 7:59 PM Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 01, 2020 at 07:04:53PM -0800, Watson Ladd wrote:
>
> > > The benefit of the new value of "0" is *unambiguous* signalling that
> the
> > > client would like to reuse the ticket if possible, and the new "255"
> > > then carries the
Issues
--
* tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-ticketrequest (+0/-3/💬3)
3 issues received 3 new comments:
- #14 Allow server to echo the number of tickets that it expects to send (1 by
chris-wood)
https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-ticketrequest/issues/14
- #13 ticket_request in HRR (1 by ch
