Jonathan Tan <jonathantanmy@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: >> I am not sure if this "at the conclusion of" is sensible. It is OK >> to assume that what the client side has is fixed, and it is probably >> OK to desire that what the server side has can change, but at the >> same time, it feels quite fragile to move the goalpost in between. > > Do you have any specific concerns as to this fragility? Peff mentioned > some concerns with the client making some decisions based on the > initial SHA-1 vs the SHA-1 reported by "wanted-ref", to which I > replied [1]. There were two but I think you are aware of both. One is what Peff already mentioned, the client may want to make the decision before going through the negotiation. The other is "moving the goalpost", the history the last server has may violate the view of the history common between the server and the client that is established during the negotiation with previous servers.