On Wed, Jan 22, 2020 at 10:33:48PM -0600, Nico Williams wrote: > 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).
Ay no, per-Viktor's follow-up, the client still needs some additional information. _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
