Konrad Kohbrok

> Can you file a follow up then for a negative test case? _Originally posted by @franziskuskiefer in https://github.com/openmls/openmls/pull/397#discussion_r625073480_ When (re-)implementing the validation logic, we should make sure to include...

Waiting with this issue until https://github.com/mlswg/mls-protocol/pull/595 was discussed and potentially merged by the WG.

Even after switching to the `tls_codec` crate, this is still an issue. The serialized KeyPackage is de-serialized and then serialized again to populate the `encoded` field.

I think this was closed by mistake, as ValSem106 only checks if the member in an Add proposal supports the configuration of the group it is going to be added...

No particular opinion on who should keep track of this. But I'm wondering, where this is relevant. If I understand correctly, these limits are per key. And due to the...

It's not super clear what this issue is about, but from the reference to #567, I interpret it to assert that when a group context extension proposal is received, it...

When fully implementing AppAck, it should be added as a test case to `test_valsem242` (cf #1104).

I just closed #984 since there is not much to do from a functional standpoint. I'm just posting this here so that we don't lose sight of the fact that...

Yes, that looks like it might do the trick. It remains the issue on how to instantiate multiple clients with distinct storage providers in a given test. I don't think...

If we adopt the commit builder approach for external commits, we should also consolidate proposal filtering. Right now we have two nearly identical functions for that.