Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com> writes: >In any case, I don't think we should assign code point 26 to this extension. >I recognize that you have existing implementations that happen to use it, but >that's a result of the unfortunate decision to squat on a code point which >was right in the way of near future assignments, and those implementations >can change to the new code point. Of course, it might be useful to add a note >to implementations of the compression draft as well.
See my previous comment on why it was used, it was only because implementers needed something to put in their code while I waited for the registry draft to be published... In any case I'm not overly fussed, as long as something gets assigned, just wanted to point out that -LTS continuing with 26 would avoid having to document the problem in two different drafts and adding hacks to code to deal with it. Given that one use is for SCADA/embedded TLS 1.0-1.2 and the other is public web TLS 1.3 it's (hopefully) unlikely they'll ever run into each other, but it'd be less messy if it was done properly rather than through workarounds. Peter. _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
