On Wed 2019-03-27 10:52:20 +0100, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote:
> Right. What about defining a set of extensions (e.g., 2 extensions) of
> flags as:
>
> struct {
> uint64 flags;
> } Flags;
If we're going to be doing this kind of bit-shaving, this is the way to
go, starting with a single CommonFlags extension -- and maybe even a
uint32 or uint16, with the bitfield registry under tight WG control. If
we exhaust that space, then we just define a CommonFlags2 extension.
If someone wants an experimental boolean extension to play with, they
can always use an empty extension. They can apply for a bit in
CommonFlags if they find that the compactness is warranted.
Keep it simple.
--dkg
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
