> On 27 Mar 2019, at 12:26, Daniel Kahn Gillmor <d...@fifthhorseman.net> wrote:
>
> On Wed 2019-03-27 10:52:20 +0100, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote:
>> Right. What about defining a set of extensions (e.g., 2 extensions) of
>> flags as:
>>
>> struct {
>> uint64 flags;
>> } Flags;
>
> If we're going to be doing this kind of bit-shaving, this is the way to
> go, starting with a single CommonFlags extension -- and maybe even a
> uint32 or uint16, with the bitfield registry under tight WG control. If
> we exhaust that space, then we just define a CommonFlags2 extension.
>
> If someone wants an experimental boolean extension to play with, they
> can always use an empty extension. They can apply for a bit in
> CommonFlags if they find that the compactness is warranted.
>
OK. You got me convinced.
In the spirit of revising quickly and revising often, I’ve uploaded version -01:
HTML: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-nir-tls-tlsflags
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-nir-tls-tlsflags>
DIFF: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-nir-tls-tlsflags-01
<https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-nir-tls-tlsflags-01>
Yoav
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
