On 18 March 2017 at 20:36, Peter Gutmann <pgut...@cs.auckland.ac.nz> wrote: > Incidentally, has anyone else who's implemented this dealt in the weird > omission of 8K by using the logical value 5 that follows 1, 2, 3, 4 for 512, > 1K, 2K, and 4K? In many cases 8K is just what you need, it halves memory > consumption while being large enough to not have to worry about fragmenting > handshake messages.
No matter how much of a good idea that is, you would risk handshake failure by doing so. Compliant server implementations are required to send an "illegal_parameter" alert if you send that. _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
