Dave Garrett <davemgarr...@gmail.com> writes: I've already replied to the other parts in an earlier reply, leaving:
>The big glaring problem, however, in multiple places, are the statements that >something is "implicit in TLS-LTS, there is no need to signal it" via its >designated extension. No! These features MUST be implemented in full, >according to their specifications, such that they will work fully with >servers that support them but not this new LTS proposal. Skimping on this >just makes this messy situation even messier, which is the opposite of what >you're trying to do here. Good point, I've changed the text to say that for TLS-LTS purposes you don't need it, but you do if you need to interop with non-LTS servers/clients. Peter. _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
