Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-tlsflags-00.txt

On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 6:00 PM Benjamin Kaduk <bkaduk@akamai.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 09:25:19PM +0300, Ilari Liusvaara wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 10:48:55AM -0700, internet-drafts@ietf.org wrote:
> > >
> > > A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
> > > This draft is a work item of the Transport Layer Security WG of the IETF.
> > >
> > >         Title           : A Flags Extension for TLS 1.3
> > >         Author          : Yoav Nir
> > >     Filename        : draft-ietf-tls-tlsflags-00.txt
> > >     Pages           : 6
> > >     Date            : 2019-08-12
> > >
> > >
> > > The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
> > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-tlsflags/
> > >
> > > There are also htmlized versions available at:
> > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tls-tlsflags-00
> > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tls-tlsflags-00
> >
> > Two things:
> >
> >
> > 1) uint8 flags<0..31>;
> >
> > That adds an extra byte that is not technically necressary (because
> > extensions have lengths anyway) and limits number of flags to 248
> > (which might be enough).
> >
> > And I do not think the length of flags field can be 0 (if it would
>
> I think you need to send it in at least one protocol "response", to
> confirm support for the extension, even if none of the flags offered
> require confirmation/echo individually.

I'm not sure this is the case: if in the future we define flags, then
what is the difference between not understanding any flag and not
understanding the extension?

>
> -Ben
>
> _______________________________________________
> TLS mailing list
> TLS@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls

-- 
"Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains".
--Rousseau.