On Fri, May 01, 2020 at 01:03:58PM -0400, Sean Turner wrote:
> We recommend that PR#20 be closed and we will progress the draft to
> Ben for his AD review. The suggested text is not strictly needed. As
> the name of the draft suggests, the client’s ticket requests are just
> that a request for tickets. The server is free to do whatever it wants
> with the request.
This is unfortunate, because there's an opportunity here to specify
an extensible extension that could later be refined to support
reuse at negligible cost to the "complexity" of the specification,
indeed all the server has to do is issue at least one ticket like
it always did, unless both counters are zero.
I've agreed to defer actual consideration of reuse to a separate draft,
but this preëmptively shuts the door on getting that done, without
requiring a second largely redundant extension that would have to modify
the meaning of {0,1} to make the "1" be "as needed". Now server that
(hypothetically) are willing to support reuse will have to consider the
interplay of two separate related extensions, which is definitely more
complex.
Declining this comes across hostile to me. I read the objections to
"only {0, 0} means zero" as a blocking counter-measure against the
deferred discussion, and not a material objection on the merits. :-(
--
Viktor.
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
