On Sun, Feb 2, 2020 at 11:04 AM Nico Williams <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 02, 2020 at 09:08:17AM -0800, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > I'm sorry to say that I'm not that sympathetic to this position. I > > appreciate that it's inconvenient for Postfix to have frequent writes > > to the ticket cache, but what you propose to do is hoist this > > implementation idiosyncracy into the specification, and I don't think > > that that's a good tradeoff, both for complexity and because the > > We've done this a lot though, haven't we. For example, we've striven to > avoid reconnects because SChannel can't really handle them. > When we designed TLS 1.3, we paid a lot of attention to it being a drop-in replacement for TLS 1.2. This required some tradeoffs. Given that this issue already existed in TLS 1.2, I don't really see that that rationale applies here. -Ekr
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
