On Monday 21 September 2015 15:04:17 Dave Garrett wrote:
> On Monday, September 21, 2015 07:22:03 am Hubert Kario wrote:
> > On Monday 21 September 2015 00:20:21 Dave Garrett wrote:
> > > A strong reason is it not being possible to change due to the need
> > > for TLS 1.3 clients to be able to conn
On Monday 21 September 2015 00:20:21 Dave Garrett wrote:
> On Sunday, September 20, 2015 10:59:58 pm William Whyte wrote:
> > might be worth increasing the maximum extension size to 2^24-1 for
> > TLS 1.3.
> No, I don't think the limit can be raised. The general ClientHello
> format has to stay fro
On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 7:59 PM, William Whyte <
wwh...@securityinnovation.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> We've updated the TLS 1.3 Quantum Safe Handshake draft to use extensions
> as suggested by DKG in Prague. All comments welcome.
>
> There's an interesting issue here: McEliece keys, which should be
Geoffrey Keating writes:
>That would affect the initial client hello, which I think we're trying to
>keep backwards compatible. It might be better to just define a rule like "if
>multiple extensions with the same number are present, their values are
>concatenated".
A better one would be "if you
William Whyte writes:
> Hi all,
>
> We've updated the TLS 1.3 Quantum Safe Handshake draft to use extensions as
> suggested by DKG in Prague. All comments welcome.
>
> There's an interesting issue here: McEliece keys, which should be
> permissible, are larger in size (about 2^20 bytes) than the
Hi all,
We've updated the TLS 1.3 Quantum Safe Handshake draft to use extensions as
suggested by DKG in Prague. All comments welcome.
There's an interesting issue here: McEliece keys, which should be
permissible, are larger in size (about 2^20 bytes) than the maximum
permissible extension size (2
