Hi there,
As mentioned in "Delegated Credentials for TLS" draft, we found this feature is
mainly designed for application-to-service scenario - for instance, to replace
the so-called 'keyless' solution. By applying delegated credential, external CA
could be less depended so that one can issue c
Hi all,
As the topic of PQ certs in TLS has been discussed in this forum a number of
times, I wanted to bring up our paper (https://eprint.iacr.org/2020/071 )
that just appeared in NDSS 2020 for awareness.
It evaluates the NIST PQ Signature candidates used in X.509 certificates for
TLS 1.3 aut
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8422,
"Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) Cipher Suites for Transport Layer Security
(TLS) Versions 1.2 and Earlier".
--
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid6002
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Transport Layer Security WG of the IETF.
Title : A Flags Extension for TLS 1.3
Author : Yoav Nir
Filename: draft-ietf-tls-tlsflags-0
> On Feb 29, 2020, at 22:19, Nico Williams wrote:
>
> On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 04:29:38PM -0800, David Schinazi wrote:
>> On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 2:57 PM Nico Williams wrote:
>>> On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 12:40:43PM -0800, David Schinazi wrote:
However, I don't think we should add a second c
Thanks, Yoav! Hearing no comments or objections, I merged this PR. Can
you please spin a new version of the document?
Best,
Chris
On 20 Feb 2020, at 9:50, Yoav Nir wrote:
Hi
Following the discussion last month, especially my message from 31-Jan
[1], I’ve submitted a PR [2] for guidance on a
The changes proposed by Viktor in [1] address my concern and I am happy
with those.
I am also fine to to have further considerations in another draft as the
current structure let this to be document be moved forward.
I think it is important we provide means to minimize the resource involved,
and
On Sun, Mar 1, 2020 at 11:20 PM Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 01, 2020 at 10:39:07PM -0800, Rob Sayre wrote:
>
> > > Agreed, and strongly so with the last sentence.
> >
> > None of these messages have addressed the chairs' suggestion:
> >
> > "Consider adoption of an individual draft that
