> I don't feel very strongly either way, though it is odd that it basically > contradicts the sender's rules in RFC 8449. > > Higher values are currently reserved for future > versions of the protocol that may allow larger records; an endpoint > MUST NOT send a value higher than the protocol-defined maximum record > size unless explicitly allowed by such a future version or extension. > A server MUST NOT enforce this restriction; a client might advertise > a higher limit that is enabled by an extension or version the server > > It does say "unless explicitly allowed by such a future version or > extension", so this is basically blanket overruling that sentence a few > months after publication.
Yeah, it's not ideal. Given that, I'd say that we don't need to say anything. It's still safe to grease by setting smaller values, but the value in doing so is hopefully marginal. _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
