> (1) aka #443 is the way to go here I think. (Such an aptly > numbered PR has to be accepted I'd say:-) I'm only convinced > of that because of QUIC, but that seems like enough or a > rationale. > > I'm against (3) - it'd break too much and cost too much. > > WRT (2) I'd prefer to drop that extensibility rather than > try use it because it's there. >
Just to be clear, (1), (2) and (3) are not alternatives to the same problem. (1) solves client-side padding, whereas (2) and (3) are alternatives for solving server-side padding.
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
