Arnt Gulbrandsen wrote:(in this case, no persistent session is created.)This works as you suggest as described in the current version of the draft.
Oh, I see. I misunderstood first time I read the draft. Still think the paren is insufficient, and anyway, what should a client do if it wants to use both?
FWIW, TLS has a similar session concept which you might want to mention, which permits TLS negotiation to finish more quickly and use less traffic. RFC 2246 talks about it (look for "session identifier" and "resuming").
While the TLS session is similar to yours, there's also a significant difference: Concurrent connections can be a part of one TLS session.
Arnt
