Re: [TLS] Confirming Consensus: Negotiating upper layer protocols

[Adam Langley <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 7:47 AM, Peter Gutmann <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Yeah, I'd sorta guessed that, but I'd really prefer it if they used the
> standard TLS format for things.  At the moment I have to drop use of standard
> TLS PDU parsing and switch to an ad-hoc custom-written parser for that one
> data blob, I can't see any good reason to use the nonstandard format when
> everything else in TLS uses the standard one.

The difference between the wording and using the TLS presentation
format is the addition of an extra length prefix. Since the extension
already has a length, it's a little sad that using the presentation
format requires adding another one - it's not as if these structures
are ever extended with extra, optional fields.

None the less, in the interests of being uniform, maybe we should have
another length.


Cheers

AGL