That's fine with me as well, though I am now considering the question of
having an API for the server application to know whether a given request
was received over 0- or 1-RTT.

-Ben

On 06/13/2017 11:29 AM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> This would be fine with me.
>
> -Ekr
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 5:12 PM, Andrei Popov
> <andrei.po...@microsoft.com <mailto:andrei.po...@microsoft.com>> wrote:
>
>     Correct, I’m planning a separate API surface for 0-RTT, as OpenSSL
>     did.
>
>      
>
>     WRT RFC language, perhaps a reasonable compromise would be to say
>     that a TLS implementation SHOULD only enable 0-RTT application
>     data upon explicit opt-in by the application?
>
>      
>
>     This is more flexible and may involve separate APIs, new
>     off-by-default flags in the existing APIS, whatever else makes
>     sense for a particular TLS implementation…
>
>      
>
>     Cheers,
>
>      
>
>     Andrei
>
>      
>
>     *From:* TLS [mailto:tls-boun...@ietf.org
>     <mailto:tls-boun...@ietf.org>] *On Behalf Of *Eric Rescorla
>     *Sent:* Tuesday, June 13, 2017 5:27 AM
>     *To:* Salz, Rich <rs...@akamai.com <mailto:rs...@akamai.com>>
>     *Cc:* tls@ietf.org <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
>     *Subject:* Re: [TLS] Separate APIs for 0-RTT
>
>      
>
>     On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 1:22 PM, Salz, Rich <rs...@akamai.com
>     <mailto:rs...@akamai.com>> wrote:
>
>         Microsoft also has a separate API for 0RTT data.  I would
>         characterize things as the two most popular browsers have
>         stated their intention to have a single API, and the two most
>         popular system libraries have two.  Outlier is clearly wrong.
>
>      
>
>     I did not know that about Microsoft. Thanks for the update. I take
>     back "outlier"
>
>      
>
>      
>
>         I agree we don’t have consensus, but do make sure that any
>         wording change accommodates the fact that the split isn’t
>         all-versus-one.
>
>      
>
>     I was intending to use wording that was neutral between the two
>     options without any claims about popularity.
>
>      
>
>     Thanks,
>
>     -Ekr
>
>      
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> TLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls

_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls

Reply via email to