On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 01:40:25PM -0400, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > > > We may yet have to see how much support or opposition the follow-on > document will meet. What continues to be puzzling is resistance to > adding a field that imposes negligible burden on the present spec, > and would clearly be included in the follow-on extension. It might
It is not puzzling to me, for two reasons: (1) fairly early on, the proposal was framed as something that might be obtained from "good faith in return", which can be interpreted as the sort of "horse trading" that many IETFers have a visceral objection to. It is hard to erase this memory when considering subsequent discussions. (2) It is asking the WG to take on faith and Paul/Viktor/Nico's authority that the 16-bit value (in hours) is sufficient, and no other fields or semantic changes would be needed. While I (and presumably others) do have a great deal of confidence in your collective technical expertise, it still seems to be presumptuous and a coopting of the WG consensus process for the follow-up pinning document. > well be the only thing that's in the follow-on extension, and so > provisioning space for it has a strong chance of simplifying the > burden on future implementations that would need only implement code > for just one extension structure instead of two. Worst-case we have > two reserved bytes in the current extension. The above notwithstanding, I'm not sure that I can dispute this worst case assessment, at present. (Presumably "egg on our collective faces" doesn't really count.) -Ben _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
