On Wed, Apr 13, 2022 at 3:51 PM Benjamin Kaduk <bka...@akamai.com> wrote:
> 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. > That's certainly possible, though I couldn't find text one way or another -Ekr
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
