Russ Housley <housley@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > I can see many situations where the information in this is not > sensitive. In fact, in the primary use case, the use mapping > information is not sensitive. An enterprise PKI is used in this > situation, and the TLS extension is used to map the subject name in > the certificate to the host account name. But then we're left with the performance rationale that the user has some semi-infinite number of mappings that makes it impossible to send all of them and too hard to figure out which one. In light of the fact that in the original -01 proposal there wasn't even any negotiation for which type of UME data should be sent, is there any evidence that this is going to be an important/common case? -Ekr _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf