n is turned off identified by me. I hope everything going out
the TLS WG in the future will be formally verified.
Cheers,
John
From: Russ Housley mailto:hous...@vigilsec.com>>
Date: Monday, 2 December 2024 at 19:00
To: Joe Salowey mailto:j...@salowey.net>>
Cc: IETF TLS mailto:tls@ietf
This document has consensus to adopt, please post a 00 draft
named draft-ietf-tls-rfc9147bis to be included as a working group document.
On Mon, Dec 2, 2024 at 9:38 AM Joseph Salowey wrote:
> This is a call for adoption of draft-rescorla-tls-rfc9147bis-00[1] as the
> basis for an RFC9147 bis doc
It's no one's fault --- the only path towards security is cooperation
between a lot of people
On Sat, 7 Dec 2024, 20:12 Muhammad Usama Sardar, <
muhammad_usama.sar...@tu-dresden.de> wrote:
> On 07.12.24 19:28, Ben Smyth wrote:
>
> > Absolute Security is impossible without fully verified stacks, i
On 07.12.24 19:28, Ben Smyth wrote:
Absolute Security is impossible without fully verified stacks, it's
hard, we just have to cooperate and throw the
words-ProVerif-Cryptography-Jasmin up and down our stack --- we do
that, we deliver on Cybersecurity
Sorry, I didn't follow that. Could you say
> > When everything goes smoothly, it’s the working group that gets the
> > credit. But when something goes wrong, the blame falls squarely on the
> > authors.
> I fully support this view. Credit vs. blame should be a balanced
> equation. We, as WG members, should equally take the blame that we did
On Sat, 7 Dec 2024, 18:21 ,
wrote:
> When everything goes smoothly, it’s the working group that gets the
> credit. But when something goes wrong, the blame falls squarely on the
> authors.
>
Now it's a collective responsibility, non?
>
___
TLS mailing
ons to the formal analysis since
> you missed the opportunity last time.
>
>
>
> Ciao
> Hannes
>
>
>
> *From:* John Mattsson
> *Sent:* Montag, 2. Dezember 2024 19:43
> *To:* Russ Housley ; Joe Salowey
> *Cc:* IETF TLS
> *Subject:* [TLS] Re: Adoption c
On 07.12.24 18:21, hannes.tschofenig=40gmx@dmarc.ietf.org wrote:
When everything goes smoothly, it’s the working group that gets the
credit. But when something goes wrong, the blame falls squarely on the
authors.
I fully support this view. Credit vs. blame should be a balanced
equation. We
time.
Ciao
Hannes
From: John Mattsson
Sent: Montag, 2. Dezember 2024 19:43
To: Russ Housley ; Joe Salowey
Cc: IETF TLS
Subject: [TLS] Re: Adoption call for RFC 9147bis
Hi,
I support adoption and just like Russ I look forward to formal verification.
Formal verification would likely
I also support adoption.
Ciao
Hannes
From: John Mattsson
Sent: Montag, 2. Dezember 2024 19:43
To: Russ Housley ; Joe Salowey
Cc: IETF TLS
Subject: [TLS] Re: Adoption call for RFC 9147bis
Hi,
I support adoption and just like Russ I look forward to formal verification.
Formal
>> If you object to the adoption of this document please respond to this
>> thread by December, 9 2024.
>Based on this, I would have expected only those objecting to respond.
Yes, it is often the case that "if you object please post" is the construction
used in the email. The IETF community ge
On Fri, 6 Dec 2024, 10:06 Muhammad Usama Sardar, <
muhammad_usama.sar...@tu-dresden.de> wrote:
> On 05.12.24 11:03, Ben Smyth wrote:
>
> If they aren't in the model, then analysis is only good up to KeyUpdate.
>
> Sure, I completely agree. We have no guarantees on what is not in the
> formal model
On 05.12.24 11:03, Ben Smyth wrote:
If they aren't in the model, then analysis is only good up to KeyUpdate.
Sure, I completely agree. We have no guarantees on what is not in the
formal model. More precisely, I would like the FATT to comment on the
following:
Since issues have already been
On Thu, 5 Dec 2024, 09:29 Muhammad Usama Sardar, <
muhammad_usama.sar...@tu-dresden.de> wrote:
> On 02.12.24 18:38, Joseph Salowey wrote:
>
> > If you object to the adoption of this document please respond to this
> > thread by December, 9 2024.
>
> Based on this, I would have expected only those
On 02.12.24 18:38, Joseph Salowey wrote:
If you object to the adoption of this document please respond to this
thread by December, 9 2024.
Based on this, I would have expected only those objecting to respond.
But since those supporting the draft are also responding, so here goes
my support f
024 at 19:00
> To: Joe Salowey
> Cc: IETF TLS
> Subject: [TLS] Re: Adoption call for RFC 9147bis
>
> I do not object, but I look forward to the FATT review.
>
>
>
> Russ
>
>
>
>
>
> On Dec 2, 2024, at 12:38 PM, Joseph Salowey wrote:
>
>
>
> Thi
I do not object, but I look forward to the FATT review.
Russ
> On Dec 2, 2024, at 12:38 PM, Joseph Salowey wrote:
>
> This is a call for adoption of draft-rescorla-tls-rfc9147bis-00[1] as the
> basis for an RFC9147 bis document. This document is seeded with the content
> of RFC 9147. If yo
Just for the record, I support adoption
-Ekr
On Mon, Dec 2, 2024 at 10:11 AM Salz, Rich wrote:
> This is a call for adoption of draft-rescorla-tls-rfc9147bis-00[1] as the
> basis for an RFC9147 bis document. This document is seeded with the
> content of RFC 9147. If you object to the adoptio
everything going out
the TLS WG in the future will be formally verified.
Cheers,
John
From: Russ Housley
Date: Monday, 2 December 2024 at 19:00
To: Joe Salowey
Cc: IETF TLS
Subject: [TLS] Re: Adoption call for RFC 9147bis
I do not object, but I look forward to the FATT review.
Russ
On Dec 2
This is a call for adoption of draft-rescorla-tls-rfc9147bis-00[1] as the basis
for an RFC9147 bis document. This document is seeded with the content of RFC
9147. If you object to the adoption of this document please respond to this
thread by December, 9 2024.
I support adoption
_
Unsurprisingly, I support adoption.
On Mon, Dec 2, 2024 at 12:41 PM Joseph Salowey wrote:
> This is a call for adoption of draft-rescorla-tls-rfc9147bis-00[1] as the
> basis for an RFC9147 bis document. This document is seeded with the
> content of RFC 9147. If you object to the adoption of th
21 matches
Mail list logo
