On Monday, 25 March 2019 22:09:35 CET Yoav Nir wrote: > Hi. Today at the TLS meeting, there was a discussion at the mic about 1-bit > extensions that only serve to indicate support for an optional feature. EKR > commented that such extensions take 4 bytes each and that maybe we need to > replace them with a flags extension. > > So I threw together a quick -00 draft with an extension that does just that > [1]. > > Comments are welcome.
I don't think that "penny-pinching" the 4 bytes necessary to send a flag is worth the interoperability problems, and increased complexing of parsing Client Hello. Especially if we go the route of actual bit flags. I think the likelihood of bugs in that code over the possible bytes saved makes it a net negative. yes, TLS is quite chatty protocol, it could encode values much more tightly, but I think we all remember the bugs related to ASN.1 parsing from inside of PKCS#1 v1.5 signatures -- Regards, Hubert Kario Senior Quality Engineer, QE BaseOS Security team Web: www.cz.redhat.com Red Hat Czech s.r.o., Purkyňova 115, 612 00 Brno, Czech Republic
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
