On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 04:44:58PM +1100, Martin Thomson wrote: > On 10 February 2017 at 16:07, Sean Turner <s...@sn3rd.com> wrote: > > a) Close these two PRs and go with the existing text [0] > > b) Adopt PR#765 [1] > > c) Adopt PR#769 [2] > > > a) I'm happy enough with the current text (I've implemented that any > it's relatively easy). > > I could live with c, but I'm opposed to b. It just doesn't make sense. > It's not obviously wrong any more, but the way it is written it is > very confusing and easily open to misinterpretation.
I couldn't make out what b) says, c) is much clearer. However, even in a), let alone b) or c), the limits are so high that one should do some greasing, or this feature seems like a prime candidate for rusting shut. -Ilari _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
