> -----Original Message----- > From: TLS [mailto:tls-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Henrick Hellström > Sent: Sunday, September 25, 2016 5:46 PM > To: Jim Schaad <i...@augustcellars.com>; 'David Benjamin' > <david...@google.com>; tls@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [TLS] BoringSSL's TLS test suite > > On 2016-09-26 02:34, Jim Schaad wrote: > > No, it appears that I messed this up. (: It should be required and not absent. > > OK, but it is strange. There are older implementations that predate RFC > 5912 by more than a decade that did omit NULL parameters. I know that > because I encountered them and had to account for them back in 2002, iirc. If > this is indeed a mistake, you were not the first to make it.
Unfortunately true. The correct value to put at this point is going to be preferedAbsent or preferedPresent and live with the results because people and standards have done it both ways for years. Jim > > _______________________________________________ > 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
