Hi Folks.
This isn't a topic for this working group list. Please take the discussion
elsewhere.
Thanks,
Joe
On Sun, Mar 8, 2020 at 12:41 PM Tony Rutkowski
wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> Amusing attempt to rewrite history. Your disagreement means nothing,
> fortunately, and folks can claim FUD all
Hi Stephen,
Amusing attempt to rewrite history. Your disagreement means nothing,
fortunately, and folks can claim FUD all they want.
The reality is that the actions in this group are facing increasing
exposure to antitrust, tort, consumer protection, and tax-related
actions. If you don't w
On 08/03/2020 16:35, Tony Rutkowski wrote:
> Stephen,
>
> It is not false.
We disagree. SDNS != TLS. TLS was SSL with the middle
S standing for socket, which wasn't part of SDNS or
GOSIP that I recall.
> It is simply largely unknown because of subsequent
> IETF related narratives that choose
Stephen,
It is not false. It is simply largely unknown because of subsequent
IETF related narratives that choose to omit the history. The documents
are available online - although portions remain classified. A request
is pending for their declassification and release. You can find some of
In article <9af29b8f-856e-eb3f-6f12-e4cb0a866...@cs.tcd.ie> you write:
>On 08/03/2020 14:46, Tony Rutkowski wrote:
>>
>> TLS is particular has a history going back to 1986 when the platform was
>> first announced by the USG and the TLS specification was instantiated
>> initially in the GOSIP stand
On 08/03/2020 14:46, Tony Rutkowski wrote:
>
> TLS is particular has a history going back to 1986 when the platform was
> first announced by the USG and the TLS specification was instantiated
> initially in the GOSIP standards and then in ITU/ISO standards.
That's false. I've seen it repeated a
Hi John,
There are several orders associated with the settlement agreement -
which is relevant here. You need a PACER account to access the docket.
It was a complicated case that stretched over several years and cost
ETSI a considerable amount of money - and involved several companies.
Tru
In article you write:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>
>One comment. Perhaps some caution might be advised in light of the
>antitrust court order in /Trueposition v. Ericsson/. Ref. Order in Case
>No. 2:11-cv-4574, (U.S. E.D. Pa, 14 Jul 2014).
That's a single page dismissing 3GPP from the case. Really?
https:
One comment. Perhaps some caution might be advised in light of the
antitrust court order in /Trueposition v. Ericsson/. Ref. Order in Case
No. 2:11-cv-4574, (U.S. E.D. Pa, 14 Jul 2014).
--amr
On 2020-03-06 7:02 PM, John Mattsson wrote:
Hi,
I am happy to report that 3GPP just took the decisi
One comment. Perhaps some caution might be advised in light of the
antitrust court order in /Trueposition v. Ericsson/. Ref. Order in Case
No. 2:11-cv-4574, (U.S. E.D. Pa, 14 Jul 2014).
--amr
On 2020-03-06 7:02 PM, John Mattsson wrote:
Hi,
I am happy to report that 3GPP just took the decisi
This is great news. Thanks for helping make it happen!
-Ekr
On Fri, Mar 6, 2020 at 4:03 PM John Mattsson wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am happy to report that 3GPP just took the decision to forbid support of
> MD5 and SHA-1, as well as all non-AEAD and non-PFS cipher suites in TLS.
> The changes apply to
Hi,
I am happy to report that 3GPP just took the decision to forbid support of MD5
and SHA-1, as well as all non-AEAD and non-PFS cipher suites in TLS. The
changes apply to all Rel-16 3GPP systems that use TLS and DTLS, which are quite
many.
3GPP had already mandaded support of TLS 1.3, forbid
12 matches
Mail list logo
