On Tuesday, March 29, 2016 01:35:50 am Eric Mill wrote: > It looks like the abbreviation this draft uses is just "SI". It uses SNI at > the top a few times to refer to Server Name Indication (which it typos as > "service" name extension). > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 1:13 AM, Dave Garrett <davemgarr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Monday, March 28, 2016 09:50:13 pm Dacheng Zhang wrote: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-zhang-tls-service-indication-extension/ > > > > You really should not use SNI as your abbreviation, as it will just be > > frequently confused with the server_name extension which is already the > > dominant use of those initials in TLS.
You're correct; my mistake. I didn't notice the typo and reading a spec draft whilst tired is not always the best of ideas. ;) CCing back to list and thread starter to make sure my correction is OTR for the list. Fixing that typo in the draft would help to avoid future misreadings. Sticking in a direct reference to RFC6066 on first mention of SNI could add another level of clarification, if desired. Thanks for quickly correcting me. Dave _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
