On Thu, Aug 3, 2017 at 8:50 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com> wrote: > This second model is actually what we arrived at, but likely failed to > articulate well. > > However, I think that you need to at least recognize the first model > to be entirely safe. I do recognize this. > As I noted in #28 above, even if the handshake > completes, it doesn't mean that the once-early data is entirely safe. > I am not sure I can read that from #28, I seem to read it as the opposite? I might be confused here. I am not sure I understand in which sense it's not safe. > This goes back to the need for consistent handling. Could you elaborate on the concept of consistent handling? I've read #27, and I still can't quite understand what problem you are trying to solve. In practice, this won't do anything other than change the name. > Keeping the focus on mechanics makes this somewhat more concrete, I > think. > Agreed.
Received on Friday, 4 August 2017 05:54:07 UTC