On 4 March 2016 at 05:49, Adam Langley <a...@imperialviolet.org> wrote: > (I think the lesson here is that protocols should have a single joint, > and that it should be kept well oiled. For TLS, that means that > extensions should have minimal extensionality in themselves and that > we should generally rely on the main extensions mechanism for these > sorts of things.)
Big +1 Note that the NSS bug also entailed non-zero SNI name types overwriting the actual SNI. _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
