On Mon, Oct 23, 2017 at 2:22 PM, Benjamin Kaduk <bka...@akamai.com> wrote:
> On 10/23/2017 07:12 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > Another comment is about symmetrical CID. >> >> 1. Consider a client sends a normal CID (CID length is not zero, >> named C-CID) to server, but the server doesn’t wants to use client’s CID >> and sends a CID generated by the server (named S-CID) to the client. >> > No. The CID is for the client's benefit, so why would this be useful? > > >> At the same time, client needs to know server has ignored C-CID (which >> means the downlink application message from the server will not include >> C-CID), and client will use S-CID in its application message. Will the >> draft cover this scenario? >> > No. > > > That is to say, this draft does not consider symmetrical CIDs at all. > You could of course echo the other side's CID, but no. -Ekr > -Ben > > _______________________________________________ > 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
