On 5/15/18 8:22 PM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > It just leaves > the door open going forward, at negligible cost (two bytes on the > wire in bandwidth, and zero in implementation).
I would be grateful if you would have a consistent story on this. Clearly, it's not just two bytes, or there wouldn't be a perceived need for them. It's two bytes plus the associated semantics and processing algorithms. In the event that anybody has an interest in implementing something along these lines the offer to work on an extension to support it still stands. At any rate, this horse is long-since dead, and you're veering into abuse-of-process territory. Your proposal has been discussed at length on the list, it's been discussed at length off the list, and there is still no consensus to modify the extension to support your use case. And as a reminder, "Rough consensus is achieved when all issues are addressed, but not necessarily accommodated." Melinda -- Software longa, hardware brevis _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
