On Fri, Aug 16, 2019 at 09:35:09AM +0200, Mirja Kuehlewind wrote: > Hi Ben, > > Thanks for the explanation. > > I would think this is actually a PS given it extents a protocol based on the > extension point this protocol provides. Maybe it is not really adding a new > function but it also kind of is: I would call probing for non-compliant > implementations a protocol function. I mean if we would specify greasing for > a new protocol, I think it would simply be part of the main spec.
Re "part of the main spec", perhaps, but presumably not a mandatory-to-implement one? To look at it a different way, what kind of interoperability requirements does GREASE mandate? Isn't it just the same interoperability requirements of the main protocol, i.e., an incremental addition of zero? -Ben _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
