Agreed it is basically an aesthetic change.
Thanks,
Xuelei
On Tue, Jul 25, 2017 at 4:58 PM Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com> wrote:
> 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
