On Thu, Mar 5, 2020, at 7:28 AM, Hanno Becker wrote:
> Hi Ekr,
>
> > I don't really agree with (b) for the reasons above. It introduces new
> > complications. As for (a) I believe that in practice the state that
> > must be kept is quite small (in general, there will only be no
> > retransmission
Thanks for raising this issue and for the discussion, folks!
Given that endpoints *process* handshake messages in sequence, thereby
preventing any out-of-order processing issues raised earlier on this thread,
the chairs think no further action is needed to address this comment.
Thanks,
Chris, o
Thanks Eric, Martin and Chris for your input!
For the record: I withdraw my claim that there's an issue with handshake
message reordering
and the transcript, as already pointed out by Eric and Chris. I also don't see
any other issues
at the moment with what appears to be the preferred model of d
