On Sun, Jun 23, 2019 at 7:51 PM Yishuai Li <yish...@upenn.edu> wrote:
> Dear TLS working group,
>
> Here’s a duplicate of GitHub issue tlswg/tls13-rfc#21 I opened today,
> which somehow disappeared:
>
I closed it. The RFC has been published, so filing issues on that repo
isn't useful.
Supported Versions are defined as Variants:
>
> struct {
> select (Handshake.msg_type) {
> case client_hello:
> ProtocolVersion versions<2..254>;
>
> case server_hello: /* and HelloRetryRequest */
> ProtocolVersion selected_version;
> };
> } SupportedVersions;
>
> while Key Share is defined as separate Constructed Types:
>
> struct {
> KeyShareEntry client_shares<0..2^16-1>;
> } KeyShareClientHello;
>
> struct {
> NamedGroup selected_group;
> } KeyShareHelloRetryRequest;
>
> struct {
> KeyShareEntry server_share;
> } KeyShareServerHello;
>
> Is there a specific reason for choosing different definition styles?
>
I'm not aware of any specific reason. I think it's just an inconsistency,
perhaps due to aesthetics.
The protocol is the same eithere way.
Is it worth unifying them?
>
Probably not. It's editorial and there is no real mechanism for doing that,
given that the RFC has been published.
-Ekr
> Also, is this mailing list the right place for such questions?
>
> Thanks,
> Yishuai Li
>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> TLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
>
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
