On Thursday, 24 May 2018 18:30:59 CEST Adam Langley wrote: > On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 8:23 PM Peter Gutmann <pgut...@cs.auckland.ac.nz> > > wrote: > > That's going to cause clashes with implementations that use that value for > > TLS-LTS, it would be better to use a value other than 26 that isn't > > already in > > use. > > Obviously I'm not adverse to using the occasional, non-IANA code point. But > they need to be picked randomly and outside the dense, IANA area. > Otherwise, this is certain to happen in short order. > > I think quite a lot of clients are going to be advertising compression > using this code point in the coming months. They should only do so when > offering TLS 1.3, which presumably LTS clients would not, so maybe there's > something you could use there.
speaking of TLS-LTS, would reigniting that discussion be good idea now, or should we wait for the TLS 1.3 to be officially published? -- Regards, Hubert Kario Senior Quality Engineer, QE BaseOS Security team Web: www.cz.redhat.com Red Hat Czech s.r.o., Purkyňova 115, 612 00 Brno, Czech Republic
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
