On 11/23/2016 02:46 AM, Judson Wilson wrote: > I worry about the buffer sizes required on embedded devices. Hopefully > the other endpoint would be programmed to limit record sizes, but is > that something we want to rely on? This could be a parameter agreed > upon during the handshake, but that seems bad. >
My understanding is that the original motivation (which admittedly preceded me) included putting a cap on the amount of data that an endpoint could be forced to buffer, yes. Also note the proposal to steal the high bit of the length field to indicate encrypted records, in the proposal to reclaim the three fixed bytes from the record header. (https://github.com/tlswg/tls13-spec/pull/762) -Ben
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
