Hi! There is consensus to adopt this draft as a working group item. This might
not be the exact form it ends up in, but there is sufficient interest to get
the work started. I'll work with the authors to migrate to the official
repository and submit an updated draft.
spt
> On Oct 25, 2024, at
Hi! This is just another reminder that this WG adoption call is still ongoing.
spt
> On Oct 25, 2024, at 03:46, Sean Turner wrote:
>
> At the TLS meeting at IETF 119 we discussed the Large Record Sizes for TLS
> and DTLS I-D; see [0] and [1]. There has been some list discussion; see [2]
> and
Hi,
I support the adoption of this document.
Best,
/Marco
On 2024-10-25 04:46, Sean Turner wrote:
At the TLS meeting at IETF 119 we discussed the Large Record Sizes for TLS and
DTLS I-D; see [0] and [1]. There has been some list discussion; see [2] and
[3]. The I-D has been revised a few tim
I support the adoption of the draft
On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 4:48 AM Sean Turner wrote:
>
> At the TLS meeting at IETF 119 we discussed the Large Record Sizes for TLS
> and DTLS I-D; see [0] and [1]. There has been some list discussion; see [2]
> and [3]. The I-D has been revised a few times sin
Hi,
I support adoption of this draft.
Regards,
Valery.
> Just a reminder that this adoption call is still on going.
>
> spt
>
> > On Oct 24, 2024, at 22:46, Sean Turner wrote:
> >
> > At the TLS meeting at IETF 119 we discussed the Large Record Sizes for TLS
> and DTLS I-D; see [0] and [1]. T
> Just a reminder that this adoption call is still on going.
I support adoption.
One place I think we would use it is for links among datacenters that connect
our own software. (Excuse the clumsy wording, I can never tell inter- and
intra- apart)
__
I support adoption of the draft, it is useful in telco networks.
-Tiru
On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 at 08:18, Sean Turner wrote:
> At the TLS meeting at IETF 119 we discussed the Large Record Sizes for TLS
> and DTLS I-D; see [0] and [1]. There has been some list discussion; see [2]
> and [3]. The I-D h
Just a reminder that this adoption call is still on going.
spt
> On Oct 24, 2024, at 22:46, Sean Turner wrote:
>
> At the TLS meeting at IETF 119 we discussed the Large Record Sizes for TLS
> and DTLS I-D; see [0] and [1]. There has been some list discussion; see [2]
> and [3]. The I-D has be
13:58
To: Sean Turner
Cc: TLS List
Subject: [TLS] Re: Adoption call for Large Record Sizes for TLS and DTLS
While I'm sceptical of a need to send nearly 2^32 byte records, or
that it would increase performance, the draft is well thought out
and detailed enough. I wouldn't be opposed to it.
> On 25. Oct 2024, at 13:56, Alicja Kario wrote:
>
> While I'm sceptical of a need to send nearly 2^32 byte records, or
> that it would increase performance, the draft is well thought out
> and detailed enough. I wouldn't be opposed to it.
Hi Alicja,
there is at least one use case of this extens
natural to support sizes up to 2^32.
Cheers,
John
From: Alicja Kario
Date: Friday, 25 October 2024 at 13:58
To: Sean Turner
Cc: TLS List
Subject: [TLS] Re: Adoption call for Large Record Sizes for TLS and DTLS
While I'm sceptical of a need to send nearly 2^32 byte records, or
that it
r 2024 at 13:07
To: TLS List
Subject: [TLS] Re: Adoption call for Large Record Sizes for TLS and DTLS
This document certainly needs more work particularly when it comes to security
considerations. However, it is well thought through and it widens applicability
of TLS.
I believe it is ready
While I'm sceptical of a need to send nearly 2^32 byte records, or
that it would increase performance, the draft is well thought out
and detailed enough. I wouldn't be opposed to it.
Not being compatible with TLS 1.2 middleboxes is a problem too...
I think that precludes it from being "Recommende
This document certainly needs more work particularly when it comes to
security considerations. However, it is well thought through and it widens
applicability of TLS.
I believe it is ready to be adopted as a working group item and I support
adoption of this work.
-yaroslav
On Fri, Oct 25, 20
14 matches
Mail list logo
