On Sun, Feb 2, 2020 at 6:43 AM Tommy Pauly <tpauly= 40apple....@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> > On Feb 2, 2020, at 3:52 AM, Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-d...@dukhovni.org> > wrote: > > On the other hand, the proposed sentinel value indicates “I’d like to > reuse tickets if I can”, but without any additional signaling from the > server about the support of ticket reuse, a server response containing no > tickets is ambiguous—maybe it means ticket reuse is fine; maybe it means > the server isn’t giving out any more tickets and won’t allow resumption. It > is much clearer if there is a bidirectional signal about negotiating ticket > reuse. > > It's worth noting that because tickets are delivered serially and without a leading count it's actually somewhat ambiguous no matter what. The server might just decide to interleave data with tickets. I do agree it's somewhat more ambiguous in the reuse case. -Ekr
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
