On 30/01/2020 17:57, Yoav Nir wrote: > Hi folks. > > In case you’re not following GitHub, there was an issue with a brief > discussion ([1]) and a resulting pull request ([2]). > > If there are no objections by late next week, I will merge the PR.
Allowing 2040 flags seems a bit mad and a possible foot-gun - with a specification required rule that could end up worse than the ciphersuites registry! Given it's possible to define a tls_flags2 extension if this one runs out, I'd argue to constrain this to a much smaller number of flags - 63 should be plenty I'd say. That said, it's not that huge a deal since I have a hard time seeing implementers even trying to code for 2040 flags and specification required is the same rule as for extensions. Cheers, S. > > Yoav > > [1] https://github.com/tlswg/tls-flags/issues/1 [2] > https://github.com/tlswg/tls-flags/pull/2 > >> On 25 Jan 2020, at 7:07, Christopher Wood <c...@heapingbits.net> >> wrote: >> >> We'd like to move draft-ietf-tls-tlsflags [1] along. To that end, >> we ask that interested parties please review the document and send >> feedback to the list. You may also send feedback to the document >> repository [2]. >> >> Assuming no substantial or controversial issues arise, we'll start >> WGLC shortly thereafter, aiming to finish before IETF 107. >> >> Thanks, Chris, on behalf of the chairs >> >> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-tlsflags/ [2] >> https://github.com/tlswg/tls-flags >> >> _______________________________________________ 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 >
0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
