> On 30.10.2021 at 04:52, Sean Turner wrote:
>
>> 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-
> 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
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
Hoping now that the submissions deadline has passed that some volunteers to
review the PR:
https://github.com/tlswg/tls-exported-authenticator/pull/76
Cheers,
spt
> On Oct 21, 2021, at 21:44, Sean Turner wrote:
>
> -IESG
>
> Jonathan -> thanks for the review.
>
> WG -> This has been sitting
The text in the PR has been updated to incorporate Sean and Rich's
suggestions. If there are no more comments I'll merge and close at the end
of the week.
Nick
On Fri, Oct 22, 2021 at 10:05 AM Salz, Rich wrote:
> Made an editorial suggestion at
> https://github.com/tlswg/tls-exported-authentica
Made an editorial suggestion at
https://github.com/tlswg/tls-exported-authenticator/pull/74#discussion_r734572153
but either way this seems like a good plan.
___
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
-IESG
Jonathan -> thanks for the review.
WG -> This has been sitting around for a while, and I would like to propose
that unless another PR appears before 29 October 2021 2359 UTC that we work
with Jonathan’s existing PR:
https://github.com/tlswg/tls-exported-authenticator/pull/76
Can I get (a
Apologies I meant 29 October 2021 2359 UTC
> On Oct 21, 2021, at 21:34, Sean Turner wrote:
>
> Hi! It’s a been awhile since Nick proposed how to resolve the IESG comments.
> To get the I-D moving again, I would like to propose the following and unless
> I hear otherwise by 29 November 2021 235
Hi! It’s a been awhile since Nick proposed how to resolve the IESG comments. To
get the I-D moving again, I would like to propose the following and unless I
hear otherwise by 29 November 2021 2359 UTC it is what we will do:
- For the 1st two, we accept Nick's suggestion, i.e., no change (these w
Hi Nick, all,
So IIUC the EAP-TLS issue refers to the problem where EAP-TLS clients
couldn't determine whether they were authenticated at the end of the TLS
1.3 handshake because the server can reject the client certificate but
continue on with the handshake.
This is the expected / RFC behaviour,
Hello TLSWG and IESG reviewers,
This is a compendium of responses to the various reviews of the
document. There are a few remaining open questions to address that I
hope we can resolve in this thread.
I’ve compiled the changes to the document in response to the comments in Github:
https://github.
11 matches
Mail list logo
