On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 12:13:28PM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On Thu 2016-06-16 11:26:14 -0400, Hubert Kario wrote:
> > wasn't that rejected because it breaks boxes that do passive monitoring
> > of connections? (and so expect TLS packets on specific ports, killing
> > connection if they
On Thu 2016-06-16 11:26:14 -0400, Hubert Kario wrote:
> wasn't that rejected because it breaks boxes that do passive monitoring
> of connections? (and so expect TLS packets on specific ports, killing
> connection if they don't look like TLS packets)
We're talking about the possibility of changin
On Wednesday 15 June 2016 09:44:18 Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On Wed 2016-06-15 04:44:59 -0400, Yoav Nir wrote:
> > I disagree that this is a low level crypto decision, or at least
> > that this is mainly so.
> >
> > There is the question of whether using the same key for application
> > data an
I would like to ask the working group for comments on the TLS-ECJ-PAKE
draft:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cragie-tls-ecjpake-00
Some brief notes:
* This intended status is informational.
* The draft is based on TLS/DTLS 1.2 as the Thread group required basis on
existing RFCs wherever possi
