On Sat, 2 Sept 2023, 13:30 Ben Smyth, <resea...@bensmyth.com> wrote: > RFC8446 leans towards half closure but doesn't mandate it. > > [For full closure,] it makes sense for A to just flush the outgoing data >> > > Yes. > > [For half closure], we want A to continue sending and then eventually send >> a close_notify when it has drained its queue. >> > But this suggests that we can't have a one size fits all rule in TLS and >> rather should explain the situation and punt it to the application binding. >> > > Why is this suggested? >
Oh, perhaps: Because RFC8446 doesn't mandate half closure, implementations could either transmit all data and close write, or just close inbound? >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
