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

Request: Clarify extensibility rules #39

Closed
bemasc opened this issue Feb 17, 2022 · 2 comments · Fixed by #45
Closed

Request: Clarify extensibility rules #39

bemasc opened this issue Feb 17, 2022 · 2 comments · Fixed by #45

Comments

@bemasc
Copy link
Collaborator

bemasc commented Feb 17, 2022

cTLS enumerates keys in the template, but does not explain how templates can be extended.

Suggestion: Clients must reject the whole template if it contains any key they do not understand. The “optional” key holds a map of optional extensions that are safe to ignore.

bemasc pushed a commit to bemasc/draft-ietf-tls-ctls that referenced this issue Feb 23, 2022
@hannestschofenig
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks for addressing your own issue with a PR. Creating an IANA registry for the keys used in the configuration data makes sense.

I would, however, like to point out (and maybe we need to make this explicit) that the configuration information is defined for convenience but is not a mandatory-to-implement functionality for a stack.

@bemasc
Copy link
Collaborator Author

bemasc commented Mar 1, 2022

Sure, some use cases can pre-arrange, or even hardcode, a specific configuration through a nonstandard channel. Some use cases (where the client and server are developed separately) obviously cannot.

@ekr ekr closed this as completed in #45 Mar 7, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants