On 10/12/2016 09:27 AM, Ilari Liusvaara wrote: > On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 09:43:05PM +1100, Martin Thomson wrote: >> On 12 October 2016 at 19:50, Ilari Liusvaara <ilariliusva...@welho.com> >> wrote: >> >> Maybe we should require text for every extension that can appear in >> the HRR: what to do if the extension is in the HRR, and what to do if >> it isn't. > Or have every extension be "no change" if not present, and do the > specified thing to CH if prsent and known, abort if present and > unknown.
This is an instance of the "require text for every extension" case, though I think either would work. > That would waste a bit of space with extensions signaling support > for some rewrites if the server doesn't use those but retries the > handshake. > I'm having trouble parsing this. The idea is that the client would waste some space in the new CH because the server doesn't have a way to indicate that the client only needs to send a subset of what it sent the first time around? -Ben
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
