On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 05:12:34PM -0800, Watson Ladd wrote: > > Now the first alternative would be infeasible to adopt because it would > > require new OpenSSL callback APIs, and anyways would be a more invasive > > change to TLS than the ticketrequest extension makes. > > Nothing says you have to remember tickets, so unless I'm missing > something the semantics already are the second one. > > Am I being silly?
That's the thing: the idea is to have one-time tickets, and keep replacing them as you use them. If that's never the case, then indeed, no change is needed (except maybe to say that it's never the case). Nico -- _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
