On Wed, Mar 04, 2020 at 05:19:02PM -0800, Nick Harper wrote:
> > Breaking interoperability.
>
> This doesn't break interoperability. If both endpoints negotiate
> ticketrequests and this new extension, the new definition applies. If one
> endpoint negotiates only this ticketrequests extension, then the definition
> here applies. That doesn't break interoperability.
The whole point of this discussion is that I looking to avoid the need
to define two overlapping extensions solving the same problem. The
current extension should and will suffice.
We might never "bless" a way to negotiate reuse, fine, but there is
definitely no need to go out of one's way to forestall that possibility.
That's frankly simply hostile, and may evidences a cultural issue in
this WG.
Barring a defensible technical reason to preclude future evolution in a
compatible manner to support a use-case that has non-negligible if not
yet majority support, precluding it anyway can only be read as a hostile
exclusionary tactic. I object.
--
Viktor.
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
