Issues
--
* tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni (+0/-5/24)
9 issues received 24 new comments:
- #193 Reasoning for 260 (1 by chris-wood)
https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/issues/193
- #192 How to parse esni_retry_request generically? (2 by davidben, ocheron)
Hi all,
Thanks for putting this together, and sorry again for the delays in
processing.
I note inline many places where we essentially repeat preexisting
requirements from RFC 8446 but use normative keywords as if they were
new requirements being imposed by this document. (There are other
I have filed a PR to fix this.
On Wed, Nov 6, 2019 at 10:28 PM Ilari Liusvaara
wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 07, 2019 at 11:18:28AM +1100, Martin Thomson wrote:
> > > Omitting the length field MUST only be used for data which is
> > > protected with one of the application_traffic_secret values, and
> >
