Thanks On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 11:26 AM, Andrei Popov <andrei.po...@microsoft.com> wrote:
> It will be inelegant to have two code points for what is conceptually the > same thing, but I think this is the best option, under the circumstances. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Andrei > > > > *From:* Eric Rescorla [mailto:e...@rtfm.com] > *Sent:* Friday, March 10, 2017 10:53 AM > *To:* Andrei Popov <andrei.po...@microsoft.com> > *Cc:* Ilari Liusvaara <ilariliusva...@welho.com>; tls@ietf.org > *Subject:* Re: [TLS] Updating for non-X.509 certificate types > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Andrei Popov <andrei.po...@microsoft.com> > wrote: > > Ø Does anyone use this? > > Ø I don't think anyone uses it. > > > > Au contraire: Windows TLS stack supports user_mapping and this mechanism > appears to be somewhat in use. However, I agree that this falls into the > category of extensions that need to be either deprecated or redefined for > TLS 1.3. > > > > Are you OK with deprecated followed by redefined with a new code point? > > > > -Ekr > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > Andrei > > >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
