Can’t we just say that all previous uses of tis-unique will instead get an exporter generated with the label “tis-unique” ?
> On 4 Nov 2015, at 11:12 AM, Alexey Melnikov <alexey.melni...@isode.com> wrote: > > Just to clarify, I think it is fine to define TLS 1.3 replacement for > tls-unique using Exporters. But I suggest for interoperability this should be > defined as a new channel binding with a new name, as opposed to just > redefining tls-unique. > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list > TLS@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
