Trimming this down. On Wed, Jan 6, 2021, at 14:53, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > I didn't expect to find much appetite for changes, but I wouldn't be doing > my job if I didn't ask the question. It's a little unusual for something > outside the core protocol to change the behavior of an extension defined in > the core protocol, but perhaps not unheard of. There is also the question > of whether it would merit an "Updates:" relationship ... since you have to > implement the rest of the new thing to get the new semantics, it may not be > needed.
This isn't an "Updates: X" moment at all in my view. Extensions to TLS have added new handshake messages (certificate status for instance) without updating what it means to implement the core protocol. It's only an update in my view if the functions defined in the updated document. > Which behavior is that, exactly? The QUIC 0-RTT keys are different than > the TLS ones, and the data itself is carried in a different place... I referred to all of the code that involves 0-RTT. > I think the key question for the TLS WG might be how similar something has > to be before it's a good idea to reuse an extension codepoint vs. getting a > new one. If you like. > For what little it's worth, the patches to enable building a QUIC stack on > top of OpenSSL (that have been rejected by upstream at this point (incomplete?) _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
