8 April 2023 at 00:03
To: Andrei Popov
Cc: John Mattsson , Christopher Wood
, Sean Turner , TLS@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [TLS] Call for adoption of draft-thomson-tls-keylogfile
On Fri, Apr 7, 2023 at 2:19 PM Rob Sayre
mailto:say...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi,
I think this concern is really r
y comes from a lot of different
>> angles.
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>>
>>
>> Andrei
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* TLS *On Behalf Of *John Mattsson
>> *Sent:* Friday, April 7, 2023 8:25 AM
>> *To:* Andrei Popov ; John
>
er Wood <
> c...@heapingbits.net>; Sean Turner
> *Cc:* TLS@ietf.org
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [TLS] Call for adoption of
> draft-thomson-tls-keylogfile
>
>
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> >“Implementations MUST NOT negotiate the cipher suites with NUL
eady comes from a lot of different angles.
Cheers,
Andrei
From: TLS On Behalf Of John Mattsson
Sent: Friday, April 7, 2023 8:25 AM
To: Andrei Popov ; John Mattsson
; Christopher Wood
; Sean Turner
Cc: TLS@ietf.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [TLS] Call for adoption of draft-thomson-tls-keylogfil
ohn
From: TLS on behalf of Andrei Popov
Date: Thursday, 6 April 2023 at 20:08
To: John Mattsson , Christopher
Wood , Sean Turner
Cc: TLS@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [TLS] Call for adoption of draft-thomson-tls-keylogfile
* Maybe IETF (e.g., UTA) could say what organizations should definitel
TLS@ietf.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [TLS] Call for adoption of draft-thomson-tls-keylogfile
Hi,
So, what should people do regarding visibility? There are obviously
organizations that think they need visibility. I see the topic popping up
frequently in a lot of different places. Both in IETF and outside.
ganizations are deploying different kinds of solutions right
now. They will likely do less secure things than necessary...
Cheers,
John
From: TLS on behalf of Christopher Wood
Date: Thursday, 19 January 2023 at 15:57
To: Sean Turner
Cc: TLS@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [TLS] Call for adoption of draft-
Hi folks,
Apologies for the delay in concluding this adoption call. To close the loop
here, it doesn’t look like we have sufficient support to adopt the document as
a WG item.
The chairs would like to recommend AD sponsorship as a viable path forward for
this document. This should achieve the
>I'm ok with adoption so long as we include sufficient
caveats along the way (and then add more caveats just
in case:-)
In OpenSSL, an application must create a function to do the logging, and call
an API to register that function. The library never does this on its own, or
under co
I'm ok with adoption so long as we include sufficient
caveats along the way (and then add more caveats just
in case:-)
If there were some technical means to ensure that this
was less likely to be abused, I'd like it more. (Could
we e.g. require inclusion of a TLS extension that has a
100kB cat-p
On Mon, Nov 28, 2022 at 07:02:20PM +, Andrei Popov wrote:
>
> I oppose adoption of draft-thomson-tls-keylogfile. The stated goal
> was to find a permanent, discoverable location for this document,
> other than NSS project's repository. Perhaps it's fine to create an
> RFC for this purpose, but
Corrected typo inline.
-Original Message-
From: Andrei Popov
Sent: Monday, November 28, 2022 11:02 AM
To: 'Salz, Rich' ; Sean Turner
; TLS List
Subject: RE: [TLS] Call for adoption of draft-thomson-tls-keylogfile
I oppose adoption of draft-thomson-tls-keylogfile. The state
To: Sean Turner ; TLS List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [TLS] Call for adoption of draft-thomson-tls-keylogfile
I support adoption.
I assume the wireshark folk(s), etc., will review ...
___
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://nam06.safelinks.protection.o
I support adoption.
I assume the wireshark folk(s), etc., will review ...
___
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
Hi!
At TLS@IETF115, the sense of the room was that there was WG support to adopt
draft-thomson-tls-keylogfile [1]. This message is to judge consensus on
whether the WG should adopt draft-thomson-tls-keylogfile. Please indicate
whether you do or do not support adoption of this I-D by 2359UTC on
15 matches
Mail list logo
