On Wed, Mar 4, 2020 at 5:06 PM Viktor Dukhovni <ietf-d...@dukhovni.org> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 05, 2020 at 11:59:50AM +1100, Martin Thomson wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 5, 2020, at 11:42, Viktor Dukhovni wrote: > > > But not in a way that forecloses interoperability with a client that > > > tries to negotiate reuse via a to-be specified mechanism in a later > > > draft. We can stop short of specifying/supporting/... reuse, but > > > deliberately precluding adding it later seems a step too far. > > > > Nothing we say here will prevent either: > > > > a) someone from ignoring the recommendation, as they already do > > Breaking interoperability. > > > b) someone from defining an extension that modified behaviour, superceding > > this mechanism > > Breaking interoperability. > > > So I can't see why you would be unhappy with this. All I am asking > > for is either no text on reuse (leaving it to 8446), or a brief > > recapitulation and reference to the text in 8446. > > Because it MUST be possible for clients and servers where only > one side supports reuse to *interoperate*. That's the whole > point of IETF standards.
A failure to resume does not break the connection. Tickets may age out anyway, or the server might have dropped state on restart, etc. So there is no interoperability problem. Sincerely, Watson Ladd _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
