On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 4:25 PM, Watson Ladd <watsonbl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 7, 2017 at 4:05 PM, Jana Iyengar <j...@google.com> wrote: > > FWIW: In my experience middleboxes don't ossify based on what the spec > says, > > they ossify based on what they see on the wire. So, if common > > implementations send CCS in a particular way, that's what will get --- > and, > > I'll argue, what has gotten --- ossified. I also agree with David and > Eric > > that compatibility mode shouldn't be required because QUIC doesn't need > it. > > What does compatibility mode mean here? It means: 1. Send the fake session_id 2. Send a bunch of spurious CCS values. If we end up with having two > slightly different versions of TLS 1.3, one that looks more like TLS > 1.2 and the other that does not, that doesn't seem like a good thing > to me. > Well, the idea is that this is a purely local decision by one side. -Ekr > My understanding is we already have ossification here and the debate > is what to do about it. > > > -- > "Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains". > --Rousseau. >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
