On Thu, Apr 9, 2020 at 6:59 AM Thomas Fossati <thomas.foss...@arm.com> wrote:
> On 09/04/2020, 14:20, "Eric Rescorla" <e...@rtfm.com> wrote: > > Assuming I understand Hanno's proposal, I do not believe that this is > > in fact an improvement, as it does not cover the important case where > > the record containing the SH is lost and then the rest of the messages > > from the server are uninterpretable. > > I don't want to speak for Hanno here but the refinement proposed in [1], > specifically the bit that says: > > [...] They may also proactively retransmit parts of a flight early if > an ACK message indicates a gap. > > should cover the case you mention I think. > But this requires being able to send an empty ACK that means "I got nothing". In which case, I don't see how it's really different from the current text except that it gives the sender less guidance. -Ekr
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
