Tomáš Mráz
Tomáš Mráz
I do not see why the equivalency groups would be more complicated to implement than your proposal with `@HRR=2`. It could save us having to add an additional mechanism in...
> 3.1) A means to specify two levels of priority for server side groups, e.g. level indication via pre-/post-fix, priority inside level either flat (client preference) or via left-to-right (server...
In my proposal, the current configuration without any priority groups would be treated as a single priority group and that would keep the backwards compatibility with the existing stable releases.
> @t8m In light of summary line 1.1 "Single string", what would the client do when configured with your example string `(X25519MLKEM768:SecP256r1MLKEM768):(MLKEM768):(X25519:P-256)` The parentheses have no meaning on the client...
The server or client preference should be indicated by SSL_OP_CIPHER_SERVER_PREFERENCE as it already kind of is. There is no need to add any other setting.
> @t8m Thanks for clarifying that you left out client key-share prefix for simplicity. Makes sense now. > > I had to notice that some shells think a `!` is...
Commits to be squashed when merging.
As you already squashed the commits, could you please also amend the commit message to reflect what is the actual change in the patch as it is now just a...
Thank you for your effort anyway.