This was discussed extensively when 8446 was published and there wasn't consensus to make such a change. If the chairs want to re-open this issue, please weigh in.
-Ekr On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 7:32 PM Stephen Farrell <stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie> wrote: > > Hiya, > > On 05/04/2023 02:47, Sean Turner wrote: > > A post IETF 116 bump to make sure folks get their reviews in. If you > > look at the diffs from RFC 8446 you can see not that much has > > changed. We will also take “I read it and it looks good” response. > > I looked at the diff between 8446bis-07 and 8446 and it seems > fine to me. My only comment is that C.4 says one "SHOULD NOT > reuse a key share" - I'd be happier if that was a "MUST NOT" > but understand if we stick with SHOULD NOT. If there were a > good reference showing that it's quite feasible to never > deliberately re-use a key share, even at scale, that'd be a fine > addition. (I don't have such a reference to offer, > sorry;-) > > Cheers, > S. > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list > TLS@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
