On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 04:38:11PM +0100, Yoav Nir wrote: > > > > On 26 Mar 2019, at 14:45, Hubert Kario <hka...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > Right. Which is why I went with a 1-byte encoding rather than a bitstring. > > > I think the likelihood of bugs in that code over the possible bytes saved > > makes it a net negative. > > I don’t think so. My encoding is not all that complex.
It would be pretty easy to forget to sort the values (which, btw, maybe we want to require, to make duplicate detection easier). -Ben _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
