Valery Smyslov writes:
>I would add that if a (D)TLS profile for HL7 is written, UTA can be a natural
>home for this draft.
This seems to be like using an S-300 to take out a drone, to update the
rabbits and cruise missiles analogy. The OP described the behaviour of a
broken TLS implementation
...@ietf.org; tls@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [TLS] [Uta] Question regarding RFC 8446
Hi Paul, all,
I agree with Yaron: this looks like a (D)TLS profiling aspect that
should be defined by the HL7 protocol.
Cheers, t
On 08/11/2022, 10:36, "Uta" wrote:
>
> Hi Paul,
>
On 11/8/22 3:50 AM, Thomas Fossati wrote:
Hi Paul, all,
I agree with Yaron: this looks like a (D)TLS profiling aspect that
should be defined by the HL7 protocol.
+1 here as well.
Peter
___
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/
Hi Paul, all,
I agree with Yaron: this looks like a (D)TLS profiling aspect that
should be defined by the HL7 protocol.
Cheers, t
On 08/11/2022, 10:36, "Uta" wrote:
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> I'm actually not sure this is a good idea, and not because we are at
> the RFC Editor.
>
> TLS has intentionally
Hi Paul,
I'm actually not sure this is a good idea, and not because we are at the RFC
Editor.
TLS has intentionally kept this aspect out of scope basically forever. The
following text appears in TLS 1.0 (Jan. 1999) and still appears unchanged in
TLS 1.3:
"No part of this standard should be ta
