Draft minutes from our meeting today are available here:
https://github.com/tlswg/wg-materials/blob/master/ietf111/notes.md
Thanks to Jonathan, Rich, and others who helped take notes and scribe! As
usual, please send any corrections to the list or propose them as PRs to the
repository.
Than
> In Section 7.1.4.1: the following text is removed:
If the client supports only the default hash and signature algorithms
(listed in this section), it MAY omit the signature_algorithms
extension.
> Since it’s a MAY, I am a-okay with deleting. Anybody else see harm?
I don't se
>In Section 7.1.4.1: the following text is removed:
If the client supports only the default hash and signature algorithms
(listed in this section), it MAY omit the signature_algorithms
extension.
>Since it’s a MAY, I am a-okay with deleting. Anybody else see harm?
Whew,
Thanks for the review. Comments inline.
> On 19 Jul 2021, at 2:26, Michael StJohns wrote:
>
> On 7/16/2021 7:55 PM, Christopher Wood wrote:
>> This is the second working group last call for the "A Flags Extension for
>> TLS 1.3" draft, available here:
>>
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc
> On Jul 28, 2021, at 12:41, Sean Turner wrote:
>
> Daniel,
>
> Thanks for following up on this (I meant to and dropped the ball). Triminng
> to the remaining issue.
>
> spt
>
>>
>>> 6. Updates to RFC5246
>>>
>>> [RFC5246], The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Versio
Daniel,
Thanks for following up on this (I meant to and dropped the ball). Triminng to
the remaining issue.
spt
>
> >> >> > 6. Updates to RFC5246
> >> >> >
> >> >> > [RFC5246], The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.2,
> >> >> > suggests that implementations can assume sup
