On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 10:56:49AM -0700, Eric Rescorla wrote: > Consider the case where the client wants to offer some capability that > the server then responds to with real data, rather than just an > acknowledgement. > > For instance, supposing the SCT extension from RFC 6962 did not exist, > the client would want to indicate support in CH and the server would > send the SCT in CERT, but this extension would need to be non-empty > and hence not a flag. draft-ietf-tls-tlsflags-09 seems a bit > uncelar on this point (unless I'm missing it) but I think we > should explicitly allow it.
In my head this was already disallowed. I couldn't swear to whether we actually talked about it previously or not, though. -Ben _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
