> On 25 Feb 2017, at 14:28, Dang, Quynh (Fed) <quynh.d...@nist.gov> wrote: > > Hi Sean, Joe, Eric and all, > > I would like to address my thoughts/suggestions on 2 issues in option a. > > 1) The data limit should be addressed in term of blocks, not records. When > the record size is not the full size, some user might not know what to do. > When the record size is 1 block, the limit of 2^24.5 blocks (records) is way > too low unnecessarily for the margin of 2^-60. In that case, 2^34.5 1-block > records is the limit which still achieves the margin of 2^-60.
I respectfully disagree. TLS deals in records not in blocks, so in the end any semantic change here will just confuse implementors, which isn't a good idea in my opinion. Aaron
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
