On Fri, May 30, 2025 at 11:14 AM Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com> wrote:
> > # (nit) 4.2.8: omission and inclusion > > > > OLD: > > For this reason, the omission of a share for group A and inclusion of > > one for group B does not mean that the client prefers B to A. > > > > NEW: > > For this reason, the omission of a share for group A and inclusion of > > one for group B do not mean that the client prefers B to A. > > I'm not sure this is actually correct. I see the argument that this > is plural, but I think there's also an argument that it's a single > act. Let's let the RPC copy edit phase resolve this. > Agreed that it is a single act. We're not talking separately about ClientHellos that omit A and ClientHellos that include B. We're talking about ClientHellos that omit A and include B at the same time, as that's the interesting case. Perhaps this'll make people happy? > For this reason, the inclusion of a share for group B, without one for group A, does not mean that the client prefers B to A. David
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
