On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Dave Garrett <davemgarr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, November 26, 2015 02:15:25 pm Ilari Liusvaara wrote: > > I actually looked at the Editors's Copy. The description is a mess: It > > seemingly first requires key_share extension, even for the first > > ClientHello... Now, that extension can't be empty... And then proceeds > > to say to omit it if client has no shares to send... Which looks like > > it is mutually contradictionary. > > We went back and forth on whether to omit or require an empty extension. > It looks like we have a mix of the two left in there that need fixing. (I > think something got merged weird) Thanks for pointing this out. > > I think it might be easier if we just required the extension for all cases > where (EC)DHE suites are offered, and have it empty to request a server > choice, instead of an omitted extension. Yes, we should either have that or have empty be forbidden. It's a matter of taste but on balance, let's go with "empty". If you want to submit a PR that cleans this up, I'll merge that. -Ekr If I remember correctly, that's what I had originally. One way or another, > it needs to be fixed to be consistent. > > > Dave >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
