> On Jul 26, 2016, at 11:11, David Benjamin <david...@chromium.org> wrote: > > 1) “Updates: 5246 (if approved)” because typically extension documents don’t > “update” the base specification. If you are suggesting that all > implementations must support these values then an updates header makes sense. > Note I’m sure somewhere along the way an extension that isn’t expected to be > supported by all implementation has an updates header but what I described is > how we’re doing it now. > > I wasn't sure and mimicked RFC 7507 and RFC 7685 which both did this. > > I expect that all servers will "support" this specification in so far as it > says nothing useful for servers. TLS servers are supposed to ignore unknown > values. I would certainly like for as many clients to do it as possible so > the ecosystem effects work out, but I certainly don't intend for it to be any > kind of requirement. (I suppose the text says MAY so existing clients also > "support" it by default.) > > Is it better to remove that line in this case? Happy to do whatever works.
I’d probably lean towards removing it. spt _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
