[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ietf-tls
Subject:    Re: [TLS] Accepting that other SNI name types will never work.
From:       Martin Thomson <martin.thomson () gmail ! com>
Date:       2016-03-03 22:44:23
Message-ID: CABkgnnWd_4F-J5m8vtR2fNtKg+1sB=HVAr=w0CPT6W+31g_Kgg () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On 4 March 2016 at 05:49, Adam Langley <agl@imperialviolet.org> wrote:
> (I think the lesson here is that protocols should have a single joint,
> and that it should be kept well oiled. For TLS, that means that
> extensions should have minimal extensionality in themselves and that
> we should generally rely on the main extensions mechanism for these
> sorts of things.)

Big +1

Note that the NSS bug also entailed non-zero SNI name types
overwriting the actual SNI.


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]