On Fri, May 01, 2020 at 11:18:58AM -0700, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> > Declining this comes across hostile to me. I read the objections to
> > "only {0, 0} means zero" as a blocking counter-measure against the
> > deferred discussion, and not a material objection on the merits. :-(
>
> I don't think it's right to say that "only {0,0} means zero" -- after all,
> this is a *request*, not a command from the client to the server.
And yet, RFC 8446 C.4 says servers SHOULD always send at least one, and
so this draft is modifying that to say that it is now "OK" to sometimes
send no tickets based on the applicable counter. All I am asking for is
that the "OK" condition be made more strict, requiring both counters to
zero before C.4 is overriden.
The server can still start WW-III upong seeing the extension, but that
does not preclude clarity about the *intended* meaning. That's what
the MUSTs/SHOULDs/MAYs etc. are for.
--
Viktor.
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
