Re: [TLS] draft-ietf-tls-grease and RFC 7919

This value would be kind of weird because this part of RFC 7919 is quite complex. But if there's interest, I don't mind adding some. But I think the TLS 1.2 bits of RFC 7919, particularly the rule you refer to, were a mistake and are best ignored. The benefits of that document are unrealizable to

Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-grease-01.txt

On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 5:00 PM Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 03:08:28PM -0400, David Benjamin wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > Apologies for the probably record time delay in actually updating this > > thing. I like the graph... apparently -00 was expired for nearly twice as > > long

Re: [TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-grease-01.txt

On Wed, Jun 06, 2018 at 03:08:28PM -0400, David Benjamin wrote: > Hi all, > > Apologies for the probably record time delay in actually updating this > thing. I like the graph... apparently -00 was expired for nearly twice as > long as it was valid? Oops! > > Per the discussion from a really reall

[TLS] draft-ietf-tls-grease and RFC 7919

I would like to suggest that one additional value be added to the list of GREASE values for named groups. Section 2 of RFC 7919 says:    Codepoints in the "Supported Groups Registry" with a high byte of    0x01 (that is, between 256 and 511, inclusive) are set aside for    FFDHE groups. Sectio

[TLS] Editorial comments for draft-ietf-tls-subcerts

Hi all, Another PR with editorial changes: https://github.com/tlswg/tls-subcerts/pull/3 The most significant change is renaming of "DelegatedCredentialParams" to simply "Credential". Thanks Christopher Patton ___