On 22/09/15 17:23, Tony Arcieri wrote: > But an unsafe feature shouldn't be kept in > TLS just because some protocols want to do unsafe things and are too lazy > to implement their own compression.
Compression does have issues clearly, but it's not correct to describe people wanting TLS to compress as lazy. They're rather looking for the same features that TLS has offered for a couple of decades. So if there were a way to help them, that'd be good. And if not, the onus I think is on us in this WG to clearly explain why we're removing that feature in TLS1.3. That doesn't have to be text in the TLS1.3 specification but I would guess the question may keep coming up, so documenting the answer in some archival form (such as an RFC:-) might be a good plan. S. _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
