Hiya,
On 05/04/2024 12:54, Achim Kraus wrote:
Hi,On that basis, I'd consider this a bad idea that ought not be pursued, and certainly not by the TLS WG.for me this sounds more like an argument for a "recommended (for general use-cases) n".
I'd go further - ISTM an argument for a re-design that just doesn't have the privacy problem. (And maybe come back to the TLS WG after that's done.)
Or does the TLS group focus on Web only and I missed that?
My mail made no reference to the web. The problem, if it exists, would apply to all uses of TLS that enabled this mechanism. Cheers, S.
best regards Achim
OpenPGP_0xE4D8E9F997A833DD.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
