On Jul 22, 2015, at 13:12, Yoav Nir wrote:
> I’d like to hear from the chairs if it’s OK to rename stuff in the IANA
> registry.
It is fine to rename stuff in the registries. As Dave pointed out we just did
that in the FFDHE draft. Just make sure to put the instructions about what to
rename
> On Jul 22, 2015, at 2:36 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
>
> On 22 July 2015 at 02:29, Yoav Nir wrote:
>> PR at
>> https://github.com/tlswg/rfc4492bis/blob/master/draft-ietf-tls-rfc4492bis.xml
>> ?
>
> https://github.com/tlswg/rfc4492bis/pull/6
So the change seems fine to me. Unless anyone obje
> I'd be OK with that. I didn't do it in the PR, but would be happy to make a
> new one.
Please do.
___
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 01:20:52 pm Martin Thomson wrote:
> I believe that renaming entries in the IANA registry is possible.
Negotiated FFDHE is renaming an extension identifier in the IANA registry, so
this is not an entirely new issue.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-negoti
On 22 July 2015 at 19:12, Yoav Nir wrote:
> I’d like to hear from the chairs if it’s OK to rename stuff in the IANA
> registry.
>
> That has some implications for implementations that use these names.
>
> Not to mention that the same issue applies to DH(E)_anon
I believe that renaming entries in
I’d like to hear from the chairs if it’s OK to rename stuff in the IANA
registry.
That has some implications for implementations that use these names.
Not to mention that the same issue applies to DH(E)_anon
> On Jul 22, 2015, at 7:09 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
>
> On 22 July 2015 at 19:07, Da
On 22 July 2015 at 19:07, Dave Garrett wrote:
> Could the cipher suite names be officially changed to add the 'E' to them?
> It'd make things simpler to be consistent.
I'd be OK with that. I didn't do it in the PR, but would be happy to
make a new one.
_
On Wednesday, July 22, 2015 07:36:50 am Martin Thomson wrote:
> On 22 July 2015 at 02:29, Yoav Nir wrote:
> > PR at
> > https://github.com/tlswg/rfc4492bis/blob/master/draft-ietf-tls-rfc4492bis.xml
> > ?
>
> https://github.com/tlswg/rfc4492bis/pull/6
Could the cipher suite names be officially
On 22 July 2015 at 02:29, Yoav Nir wrote:
> PR at
> https://github.com/tlswg/rfc4492bis/blob/master/draft-ietf-tls-rfc4492bis.xml
> ?
https://github.com/tlswg/rfc4492bis/pull/6
___
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/t
>> I have never understood why 4492 doesn't claim forward secrecy for
>> ECDH_anon suites. Can someone explain why this doesn't have an 'E’?
>
> I wasn’t there for the original 4492, but I think it’s because the old
> anonymous ciphersuites were called DH_anon (no E).
>
> They both provide fo
PR at
https://github.com/tlswg/rfc4492bis/blob/master/draft-ietf-tls-rfc4492bis.xml ?
> On Jul 22, 2015, at 11:23 AM, Martin Thomson wrote:
>
> On 22 July 2015 at 02:20, Yoav Nir wrote:
>> They both provide forward secrecy.
>
> The draft specifically excludes ECDH_anon from the following
> st
On 22 July 2015 at 02:20, Yoav Nir wrote:
> They both provide forward secrecy.
The draft specifically excludes ECDH_anon from the following
statement, implying otherwise:
The ECDHE_ECDSA and ECDHE_RSA key exchange mechanisms provide forward
secrecy.
It might be a good idea to revise that.
On Jul 22, 2015, at 10:44 AM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> I have never understood why 4492 doesn't claim forward secrecy for
> ECDH_anon suites. Can someone explain why this doesn't have an 'E’?
I wasn’t there for the original 4492, but I think it’s because the old
anonymous ciphersuites were cal
I have never understood why 4492 doesn't claim forward secrecy for
ECDH_anon suites. Can someone explain why this doesn't have an 'E'?
___
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
14 matches
Mail list logo
