Yeah, I'm certainly sympathetic to this. TBH, from an aesthetic perspective I prefer what's in cTLS now (though it had the same property) but I figured that some consistency was nice.
-Ekr On Mon, Oct 5, 2020 at 6:31 PM Marten Seemann <martenseem...@gmail.com> wrote: > One thing that’s a bit annoying about QUIC’s variant format is that there > are multiple ways to encode a number. This has led to some complications in > the specification (e.g. QUIC requires you to use the minimal encoding for > frame types, but allows all encodings everywhere else). > It would be nice to have an unambiguous way to encode a number. > > On Tue, Oct 6, 2020 at 07:35 Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com> wrote: > >> Hi folks, >> >> cTLS uses a bespoke varint format. Now that QUIC is nearly done, I >> propose adopting their varint format. >> >> https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-ctls/pull/28 >> >> Any objections? >> -Ekr >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
