BugOfBugs

Does this mean that _client_, and _server_ can use only **1 key**, even if I make 3: _RSA_, _DSA_, _ECDSA_? Will your change allow to use multiple keys of same...

Better **count** how many _clients_ send multiple _key_share_, and how many times _server_ retries for different _key_share_. If none, may not bother. **Less data** is better for network. May even...

**Limit on quantity** of _key_share_ **violates** _RFC_, and **purpose** of this _issue_ to **remove limit**. You would rename the _issue_: limit to 4 rather than 1. **Limit** on **client** is...

>understood that this choice deviates from the standard You merely confirm that you violate standard. But that is what I argue against. >free choice... up to 4 You take away...

@martinschmatz >It was understood My purpose was not to repeat myself. Rather to inform that yours is not reply. Reply is due. >arguments found above [There are no multiple arguments.](https://github.com/openssl/openssl/issues/21633#issuecomment-2154255036)...

>missed argument I did not. We presume a benefit minimal communication. >Avoiding dynamic memory allocation is distant priority Do you agree to drop this excuse? >quantity of '!' prefixes Always...

@ajbozarth remove this pull, because discussion is not complete. Yet you split 2nd. There should be only 1. I warned against splitting. Warned again in discussion split from that. You...

>@mattcaswell will this additionally fix #22203? Yes. Negatively. They introduce bug. Would bug that issue too. https://github.com/openssl/openssl/issues/21633#issuecomment-2215236893 Afterwards fix to that will overwrite this. Bug is in vain. I suggested...