tl;dr: With the caveat that the text that might go in 8446bis is more
important, I think kitten should probably follow tls’ lead here and not include
the header.
The updates header has been the source of numerous debates for over a decade.
It has been used to indicate critical normative updates
> On Oct 29, 2021, at 10:32, Salz, Rich wrote:
>
> On 10/27/21, 9:40 AM, "Sean Turner" wrote:
>
>> Hoping now that the submissions deadline has passed that some volunteers
>> to review the PR:
>> https://github.com/tlswg/tls-exported-authenticator/pull/76
>
> This is really important in
I actually think we’re going to try to do this 8447bis:
https://github.com/tls-stuff/rfc8447bis
We need to get it adopted, but that’s on tap for this IETF (or should be).
spt
> On Oct 29, 2021, at 17:16, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
> Well, we certainly can change it in 8446-bis.
>
> My put here wou
On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 4:01 PM Ira McDonald
wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
> I agree. Let's get the semantics right. You mentioned a 3-tuple w/
> "Discouraged".
> Should that be "Deprecated" (for clarity)?
>
The implied semantics are are:
Recommended: The IETF has consensus this is good (e.g., AES)
No
Hi Eric,
I agree. Let's get the semantics right. You mentioned a 3-tuple w/
"Discouraged".
Should that be "Deprecated" (for clarity)?
On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 5:17 PM Eric Rescorla wrote:
> Well, we certainly can change it in 8446-bis.
>
> My put here would be: let's get consensus on the *sem
Well, we certainly can change it in 8446-bis.
My put here would be: let's get consensus on the *semantics* we want for
the various categories without worrying about the names (call them A, B, C,
etc.) and then we can name them after.
-Ekr
On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 2:14 PM Ira McDonald
wrote:
>
Hi Eric,
Thanks for the background. I still sympathize with Hannes' point that
"Recommended" means "IETF Consensus". I have to explain this
too often in the insular automotive industry.
But I certainly wouldn't write an RFC to change the title of a single
column in an IANA registry. I've been
Previous discussion is on this issue:
https://github.com/tlswg/tls13-spec/issues/1214
On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 12:13 PM Salz, Rich wrote:
>
>- I am actually not in favor of changing it to IETF Consensus. I think
>these have different meanings.
>
>
>
> To be clear, I wasn’t expressing an o
* I am actually not in favor of changing it to IETF Consensus. I think
these have different meanings.
To be clear, I wasn’t expressing an opinion on whether or not to do this, I was
just showing folks how to start the change process.
___
TLS mailin
I am actually not in favor of changing it to IETF Consensus. I think these
have different meanings.
I prefer: Recommended/Not Recommended/Discouraged
On Fri, Oct 29, 2021 at 7:37 AM Salz, Rich wrote:
>
>- I agree that the "Recommended" column in the IANA registry (which is
>frequently
The IESG has received a request from the Transport Layer Security WG (tls) to
consider the following document: - 'Guidance for External PSK Usage in TLS'
as Informational RFC
The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits final
comments on this action. Please send subst
* I agree that the "Recommended" column in the IANA registry (which is
frequently misunderstood)
* should just be renamed to "IETF Consensus". Obvious and self-explanatory.
The way to do that is to get an RFC out that makes that change. It could be
stand-alone, or part of another (lik
On 10/27/21, 9:40 AM, "Sean Turner" wrote:
>Hoping now that the submissions deadline has passed that some volunteers
> to review the PR:
>https://github.com/tlswg/tls-exported-authenticator/pull/76
This is really important information, and probably not obvious to many. It
should go in
Hi Jonathan,
On Thu, 2021-10-28 at 18:46 +0100, Jonathan Hoyland wrote:
> Hi Ruslan,
>
> Yes, two distinct TLS connections having the same exporter key would be
> really bad, but I'm specifically talking about two runs of some protocol
> bound to a single TLS session.
> A single TLS session will
Hi TLS,
As discussed during the meeting at IETF 111, we’ve been working on an
extension to cTLS that transforms the record layer into a pseudorandom
bitstream on the wire, and it’s ready for its first review.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-cpbs-pseudorandom-ctls-00
Please review and
15 matches
Mail list logo
