Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

The transport parameter removes EOED #4689

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 14, 2021
Merged

Conversation

martinthomson
Copy link
Member

As agreed via mail.

Closes #4475.

As agreed via mail.

Closes #4475.
@martinthomson martinthomson added design An issue that affects the design of the protocol; resolution requires consensus. -tls labels Jan 7, 2021
Copy link
Contributor

@kaduk kaduk left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This gets the job done, with or without the suggested rewording.

@@ -1821,6 +1821,9 @@ QUIC (such as the use of TLS with TCP defined in {{!TLS13}}). A fatal
unsupported_extension alert MUST be sent by an implementation that supports this
extension if the extension is received when the transport is not QUIC.

Negotiating the quic_transport_parameters extension causes the EndOfEarlyData to
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
Negotiating the quic_transport_parameters extension causes the EndOfEarlyData to
Negotiating the quic_transport_parameters extension causes the requirement to send EndOfEarlyData to

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I think that the shorter phrasing is better. It's not about not having a requirement to send EOED, but a requirement to not send EOED. And, as this refers to the very next section, the fewer words expended here the better.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

For the question is whether an implementer (bot being on mind you) would be confused by the lack of "requirement to send" phrase, I tend to think that without it's still clear that you don't send EOED.

@martinthomson martinthomson merged commit 7d67f7c into master Jan 14, 2021
@martinthomson martinthomson deleted the tp-disables-eoed branch January 14, 2021 22:57
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
-tls design An issue that affects the design of the protocol; resolution requires consensus.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Ben Kaduk's TLS Discuss 1
8 participants