On Fri, Oct 14, 2022 at 11:00:10AM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > Oh, okay. That's an argument in favor of not doing that, then. > Perhaps we'd better revisit the introduction of tls-exporter once we > know more about all that, and it looks like we would need a way to be > able to negotiate which channel binding to use (I recall that the > surrounding RFCs allowed some extra negotiation, vaguely, but my > impression may be wrong).
I am not sure what can be done for that now, so I have marked the patch as returned with feedback. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
