On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 10:42 PM David Benjamin
wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 5:00 PM Lucas Pardue
> wrote:
>
>>
>> That makes sense but I guess I don't see the point in defining a new
>> thing that contains frames that are never sent on streams. That is, if
>> these are connection settings,
On Tue, Jul 21, 2020 at 8:22 AM Lucas Pardue
wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 10:42 PM David Benjamin
> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jul 20, 2020 at 5:00 PM Lucas Pardue
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> That makes sense but I guess I don't see the point in defining a new
>>> thing that contains frames that are ne
I guess you could have protocol-specific numbers and protocol-independent
syntax? Or you could allocate numbers in yet another number space for all
the existing settings. The latter seems like a lot of fuss, and the former
is kinda weird. At that point you may as well get a protocol-specific blob
(
As I understood things in ALPS, each application protocol has its own
settings so I don't see there being too much problem with the disjoint
number spaces. It is a bit fussy but it avoids having to rework existing
stacks to parse frames that don't belong to any streams. From the stacks
that I'm ex
Hi,
It's now six and a bit months later. It's true those have
been very distracting months for us all but when are we
hoping to progress this draft?
S
On 12/05/2020 10:59, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> It's now four and a bit months later. It's true those have
> been very distracting mo
Dear list,
are there any news about the draft-ietf-tls-dtls-connection-id and the
IANA registration of the connection_id?
According
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-dtls-connection-id the
draft expired on April 23, 2020 and according
https://www.iana.org/assignments/tls-extensiont
