Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-grease-02.txt

[Sean Turner <[e-mail]>]

> On Jan 17, 2019, at 15:38, David Benjamin <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 2:31 PM Hubert Kario <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On Thursday, 17 January 2019 21:23:37 CET David Benjamin wrote:
> > On Thu, Jan 17, 2019 at 11:05 AM Hubert Kario <[e-mail]> wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, 16 January 2019 21:25:26 CET [e-mail] wrote:
> > > > There are also htmlized versions available at:
> > > > https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tls-grease-02
> > > 
> > > while record_size_limit extension sends just one value, it does
> > > specifically
> > > allow the client to advertise higher values than the protocol versions or
> > > extensions would indicate
> > > 
> > > I wonder if sending such values shouldn't be part of GREASE behaviour,
> > > even if
> > > it wouldn't use GREASE values...
> > 
> > I think that should be sorted out in a separate document. This one's been
> > sitting around for a while as it is, and record_size_limit doesn't have an
> > RFC to cite yet. :-)
> 
> eee? https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8449
> 
> Oh, huh. It wasn't linked from https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tls-record-limit-03, so I didn't see it.
> 
> David

I was minutes away from issuing the WGLC for this draft when Hubert’s message came in.  I want to make sure we address his comment, but I also want to get the WGLC going.  Since this is the only known issue, the WGLC will refer to issue specifically (and this thread) to see if we can bring it to a close.  You can comment on the WGLC thread or in this thread.  

spt