> On Mar 26, 2018, at 18:18, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
>
> IANA noted that this is effectively the
> same as closing the registries in terms of the difficulty of making
> further registrations, though I am not sure that the authors replied to
> the question that I think I asked about what the proc
Was there a consensus to no longer accept 1.2 hash/sig alg identifiers? I
don't recall that, and it clearly wasn't David's intent, as his mail to the
list today shows.
Seems like there's just some confusion that can be fixed with some text
pointers. The registry shouldn't be closed
On 03/26/2018 12:24 PM, Salz, Rich wrote:
> Is it now impossible adding new things to TLS 1.2? I don't believe the WG
> understood that this would be the situation. So I disagree with your claim
> that this was our understanding of the situation.
I was under the impression that the WG was well
On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 1:25 PM Salz, Rich wrote:
> Is it now impossible adding new things to TLS 1.2? I don't believe the WG
> understood that this would be the situation. So I disagree with your claim
> that this was our understanding of the situation.
>
> Okay, it turns out that David's neat
Is it now impossible adding new things to TLS 1.2? I don't believe the WG
understood that this would be the situation. So I disagree with your claim
that this was our understanding of the situation.
Okay, it turns out that David's neat hack make some things harder. So what?
_
On 03/23/2018 07:59 AM, Salz, Rich wrote:
> So we have two registries that share a number space.
>
> Sounds like the right solution is for the registries to coordinate.
>
Well, there are three registries involved -- two existing one octet
registries that apply to TLS 1.2 and below, and a new TLS
So we have two registries that share a number space.
Sounds like the right solution is for the registries to coordinate.
___
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 12:53:22PM +, Salz, Rich wrote:
> I am inclined to agree with Peter. It doesn't quite seem like a registry if
> the very first time there is a list of things in it, that list is now frozen.
>
> Why are we closing/reserving all the bits?
Huh? These are for the old TL
I am inclined to agree with Peter. It doesn't quite seem like a registry if
the very first time there is a list of things in it, that list is now frozen.
Why are we closing/reserving all the bits?
___
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.o
> On Mar 22, 2018, at 10:10, Peter Gutmann wrote:
>
> Sean Turner writes:
>
>> I had a quick chat with the iANA folks about the HashAlgorithm and
>> SignatureAlgorithm, which we are effectively closing by marking all
>> unregistered bits as either reserved or depcreated. IANA suggested anothe
Sean Turner writes:
>I had a quick chat with the iANA folks about the HashAlgorithm and
>SignatureAlgorithm, which we are effectively closing by marking all
>unregistered bits as either reserved or depcreated. IANA suggested another
>way which is to just close the registry,
This seems a bit of
I had a quick chat with the iANA folks about the HashAlgorithm and
SignatureAlgorithm, which we are effectively closing by marking all
unregistered bits as either reserved or depcreated. IANA suggested another way
which is to just close the registry, An example for the registry follows:
On Fri, Mar 16, 2018 at 02:01:48PM +, Sean Turner wrote:
> During Adam Roach’s AD review of draft-ietf-tls-tls13, he noted something
> about the HashAlgorithm and that made me go look at what was said in
> draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates. Turns out that 4492bis assigned some
> values d
During Adam Roach’s AD review of draft-ietf-tls-tls13, he noted something about
the HashAlgorithm and that made me go look at what was said in
draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates. Turns out that 4492bis assigned some
values draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates was marking as reserved. I have
14 matches
Mail list logo
