Given that this document has been through 2 WGLCs, and this is basically an
aesthetic change, I don't think it gets over the barrier.
-Ekr
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 4:48 PM, Xuelei Fan <xuelei....@vimino.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The TLS 1.3 Certificate handshake message is defined as:
>
> struct {
> opaque certificate_request_context<0..2^8-1>;
> CertificateEntry certificate_list<0..2^24-1>;
> } Certificate;
>
> certificate_request_context If this message is in response to a
> CertificateRequest, the value of certificate_request_context in
> that message. Otherwise (in the case of server authentication),
> this field SHALL be zero length.
>
>
> As the certificate_request_context and client delivered Certificate
> handshake message are only in response to a CertificateRequest, the one
> byte zero length of certificate_request_context field is redundant for
> server delivered certificate handshake message. It may be more clear to use
> the certificate_request_context field for client delivered Certificate
> handshake message only, for example:
>
> struct {
> select (connection_end) {
> case client:
> opaque certificate_request_context<0..2^8-1>;
> case server:
> struct {};
> }
> CertificateEntry certificate_list<0..2^24-1>;
> } Certificate;
>
> Regards,
> Xuelei Fan
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> TLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>
>
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
