On 03/14/2017 06:26 AM, Yoav Nir wrote: > > > Seems we’re in agreement. So how about modifying the sixth paragraph > in section 5.4? > > OLD: > The presence of padding does not change the overall record size > limitations - the full fragment plaintext may not exceed 2^14 octets. > > NEW: > The presence of padding does not change the overall record size > limitations - the full fragment plaintext may not exceed 2^14 octets. If > the maximum fragment length is reduced by the presence of the > max_fragment_length extension from [RFC6066] then the reduced limit > applies to the full plaintext, including the padding. >
That's probably fine, but maybe this one is better: NEW: The presence of padding does not change the overall record size limitations - the full fragment plaintext may not exceed 2^14 octets. If the maximum fragment length is reduced, such as by the max_fragment_length extension from [RFC6066], then the reduced limit applies to the full plaintext, including the padding. -Ben
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
