Again, responding to old emails...
> -Original Message-
> From: TLS On Behalf Of Stephen Farrell
> Sent: Friday, April 29, 2022 8:25 PM
> To: TLS@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [TLS] WGLC for draft-ietf-tls-hybrid-design
>
> - section 2: if "classic" DH were broken, and we then depend on a PQ-K
On 8/11/2022 1:54 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
On Thu, Aug 11, 2022 at 12:35:23PM -0700, Christian Huitema wrote:
Isn't the ANIMA WG working on these scenarios? If there is a formal
"enrollment" process for adding a device to a network, that process could
include setting the time, and possibly pe
Why both X25519+Kyber512 and P256+Kyber512?
Because there are good HW implementations supporting P256, and (at least for
some people) it’s good enough?
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
___
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https:/
Why both X25519+Kyber512 and P256+Kyber512?
Note that Anything+Kyber512, in particular X25519+Kyber512, will be FIPS
certifiable after NIST standardized Kyber512.*
Best,
Bas
—
* With the tiny caveat that apparently the order of the shares does matter
atm. [insert facepalm.]
> - X25519 + Kyb
Again, this is late, however Stephen did ask this to be discussed in the
working group, so here we go:
> -Original Message-
> From: TLS On Behalf Of Stephen Farrell
> Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2022 11:49 AM
> To: Ilari Liusvaara ; TLS@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [TLS] WGLC for draft-ietf-tls
On 8/9/22 4:12 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
n Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 4:08 PM Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
On Tue, Aug 09, 2022 at 03:59:01PM -0700, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
3. Are you aware of some other set of rules for certificate issuance
that require
revocation after the certificate has expir
Sorry for the late response; I was going through old emails and came across
this; I thought it warranted a response
> -Original Message-
> From: TLS On Behalf Of Ilari Liusvaara
> Sent: Saturday, April 30, 2022 5:05 AM
> To: TLS@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [TLS] WGLC for draft-ietf-tls-hybri
