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
Renaming HandshakeType names in IANA request #265
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Do we want anything in the prose about how the RequestConnectionId structure is the message contents when the HandshakeType is request_connection_id/etc.?
Also update Appendix A.2?
As far as referring to the snake case in the main body, I went and looked at RFC 8446 and it does not refer to the snake case. I tend to think that if we make the change in 5.2 and A.2, that should be enough breadcrumbs for people to figure it out. I put them in the same order as they are in the registry and moved up new_session_ticket. Triple check this change please. |
case encrypted_extensions: EncryptedExtensions; | ||
case certificate_request: CertificateRequest; | ||
case request_connection_id: RequestedConnectionId; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Shouldn't this be just "RequestConnectionId", not "Requested"?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes fixing this too.
@@ -1130,12 +1132,14 @@ fragmentation, DTLS modifies the TLS 1.3 handshake header: | |||
case client_hello: ClientHello; | |||
case server_hello: ServerHello; | |||
case end_of_early_data: EndOfEarlyData; | |||
case new_session_ticket: NewSessionTicket; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I see NST (4) as before EOED (5) in the registry.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Were we planning to order these by codepoint value in the final RFC?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes ... will submit a new PR now to reorder
Resolves #264.