> On Apr 26, 2018, at 11:41 AM, Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com> wrote:
>
> This discussion would probably be a lot more productive if you were
> able to have it without accusing other participants of acting in bad
> faith.
[ Well the objections do seem rather hypothetical, and the thing being
objected to (a 16-bit reserved field) so minimally objectionable, that
it is perplexing why it is so important to avoid reaching a compromise
by allowing the 2-byte to be added. Indeed it sure looks like the
separate document that might define the follow-on extension would
be strongly opposed in any form by those opposing the reserved 2 bytes,
but I'd be thrilled to learn of your support in principle for such a
document, perhaps you'd even be willing to author (or co-author) the
initial draft? ]
I rather like Paul's point that the lifetime of support for
this extension belongs with this extension. Adding an extension to
signal ongoing support for another extension rather unnatural.
--
Viktor.
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
