Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2018 21:43:07 +0000
From: Alessandro Ghedini <alessandro@ghedini.me>
To: tls@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20180208214307.GA29309@pinky>
Mail-Followup-To: tls@ietf.org
References: <151696190108.24397.6150515497869897080@ietfa.amsl.com>
 <20180126102659.GA5204@pinky>
 <4ef441ff-6075-626e-b208-a0e5da3d18f0@akamai.com>
 <CAAZdMaczieoBKBo21Hpm36V6k=SY_UORqwguma0QGh3JJW4wPA@mail.gmail.com>
 <9126f0e6-e135-5421-f9b9-1ff880fd19e8@akamai.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <9126f0e6-e135-5421-f9b9-1ff880fd19e8@akamai.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.3 (2018-01-21)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/-WoFtGCqyGSDcXMHQkWcxoQr8Rk>
Subject: Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-certificate-compression-02.txt
Precedence: list

On Wed, Jan 31, 2018 at 03:41:34PM -0600, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> On 01/30/2018 04:02 PM, Victor Vasiliev wrote:
> >     I also wondered whether there was any sense in reserving codepoint
> >     0 (of
> >     CertificateCompressionAlgorithm) for "uncompressed".  I guess not,
> >     since
> >     support for uncompressed certificates is implicit by means of not
> >     using
> >     the extension.  But sometimes keeping value 0 (basically) reserved is
> >     still useful.
> >
> >
> > I've considered that, but decided that this would just introduce two
> > ways to do
> > the same thing (send certificate uncompressed), so I decided against it.
> 
> Sure.  I don't see a reason to add a code point for uncompressed, but
> maybe there is an aesthetic argument for leaving 0 reserved entirely. 
> But I definitely do not insist on anything.

Yeah, makes sense to keep 0 reserved. I made a PR for this:
https://github.com/tlswg/certificate-compression/pull/12

and looks like Victor already merged it.

Cheers