Thanks Viktor, I missed this part of the discussion. The text looks fine
to me as is.
Joe
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 2:50 PM, Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 02:11:01PM -0700, Joseph Salowey wrote:
>
> > It looks like we have good consensus on PR 169 to relax certificate list
>
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 02:11:01PM -0700, Joseph Salowey wrote:
> It looks like we have good consensus on PR 169 to relax certificate list
> ordering requirements. I had one question on the revised text. I'm
> unclear on the final clause in this section:
>
> "Because certificate validation requ
All,
After reviewing threads concerning whether the signature_algorithms extension
should be MTI, the general consensus on the list seems to prefer making the
signature_algorithms extension MTI for TLS 1.3.
ekr - Please incorporate this into the next version of the TLS 1.3.
spt
_
On 26 August 2015 at 14:11, Joseph Salowey wrote:
> "Because certificate validation requires that trust anchors be distributed
> independently, a self-signed certificate that specifies a trust anchor MAY
> be omitted from the chain, provided that supported peers are known to
> possess any omitted
On Wednesday, August 26, 2015 05:11:01 pm Joseph Salowey wrote:
> It looks like we have good consensus on PR 169 to relax certificate list
> ordering requirements. I had one question on the revised text. I'm
> unclear on the final clause in this section:
>
> "Because certificate validation requi
It looks like we have good consensus on PR 169 to relax certificate list
ordering requirements. I had one question on the revised text. I'm
unclear on the final clause in this section:
"Because certificate validation requires that trust anchors be distributed
independently, a self-signed certifi
