I’m actually fine with that. You have to consider P_{extension implemented and
used}.Different people will disagree about the value of P. -Tim From: Paul Wouters [mailto:p...@nohats.ca] Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2018 8:18 PM To: Tim Hollebeek <tim.holleb...@digicert.com> Cc: James Cloos <cl...@jhcloos.com>; Ted Lemon <mel...@fugue.com>; <tls@ietf.org> <tls@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [TLS] TLS DNSSEC chain consensus text, please speak up... On May 17, 2018, at 19:44, Tim Hollebeek <tim.holleb...@digicert.com <mailto:tim.holleb...@digicert.com> > wrote: Making things more complicated with no obvious benefit just makes things more complicated. I oppose adding two bytes for some nebulous future purpose. The consequence of this opinion would be this: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-asmithee-tls-dnssec-downprot-00 Which is a lot of complexity for one TLS extension to define the behaviour of another TLS extension. And it still adds two bytes in the 2nd extension. So if you believe more simplicity is better, then you made the wrong choice. Paul
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
