On 17/02/2021 21:00, Eric Rescorla wrote:
On Wed, Feb 17, 2021 at 8:24 AM Stephen Farrell <stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie> wrote:On 17/02/2021 16:00, Eric Rescorla wrote:On Tue, Feb 16, 2021 at 4:44 PM Stephen Farrell <stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie>wrote:On 17/02/2021 00:34, Eric Rescorla wrote:How is it any harder to manage a multi-octet server-chosen value than a single-octet server-chosen value?Easier for the library on the server side. If it's >1 octet then someone will want some semantics. If ==1 then they'll have to accept none and possible collisions so it can be handled independently inside the library.The server is free to enforce 1 byte.A server operator would be free to do that. The person writing the code likely would not be as some server operator would also be free to try impose semantics on a multibyte field.Yeah, I don't really agree that we should restrict every server in order to make it easier for the people writing SSL stacks to tell server operators "no".
Yes, we disagree. (This mail has as much fresh content as the one to which I'm replying:-) S.
-EkrS.-Ekr
OpenPGP_0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
OpenPGP_signature
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
