Martin Vigoureux has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-tls-record-limit-02: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-record-limit/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hello, I'm not a TLS expert so please disregard if this is irrelevant. Document says: Clients that depend on having a small record size MAY continue to advertise the "max_fragment_length". Do you mean: Clients that depend on having a small record size MAY continue to advertise the "max_fragment_length" *only*. If so, what would be the behaviour of a server that supports both "max_fragment_length" and "record_size_limit" in that situation? _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
