On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 4:56 PM, Nico Williams <n...@cryptonector.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 04:52:14PM -0400, Richard Barnes wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 4:48 PM, Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-d...@dukhovni.org > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 18, 2018, at 4:47 PM, Richard Barnes <r...@ipv.sx> wrote: > > > > > > > > I do not support adding a field to the protocol with semantics to be > > > defined later. Especially a 16-byte field, which is a fair bit of > cruft to > > > carry around. > > > > > > The 16-byte is a typo. It was supposed to be 16-bit. My fault. Sorry. > > > > > > > Secondary point. Still don't think we should deliberately include > > undefined fields, e.g., because part of the discussion is whether 16 bits > > is the right size. > > It's not as if we've never had reserved fields. > The only "reserved" in RFC 5246 is a few code points that are reserved for private use. No reserved fields. --Richard
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
