On 9 June 2017 at 01:45, Piotr Sikora wrote:
> FWIW, Brotli encryption at top compression levels (10 & 11) is quite
> expensive, so it probably only makes sense for pre-compressed
> certificates and possibly for one-time compression when loading
> certificates.
Certificates don't change that oft
On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 5:43 PM, Dave Garrett wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 07, 2017 07:03:55 am Piotr Sikora wrote:
> > > Additionally, there's one bit of the spec which I question the need
> for: zlib support. Unless someone can show a legitimate case where zlib
> will consistently and notably out
On Wednesday, June 07, 2017 07:03:55 am Piotr Sikora wrote:
> > Additionally, there's one bit of the spec which I question the need for:
> > zlib support. Unless someone can show a legitimate case where zlib will
> > consistently and notably outperform brotli, I don't see the point in
> > defini
Ilari Liusvaara wrote:
>On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 05:38:59AM +, Raja ashok wrote:
>> Hi Victor & Alessandro,
>>
>> I have gone through the draft and I am having a doubt.
>>
>>> The extension only affects the Certificate message from the server.
>>> It does not change the format of the Cert
On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 4:29 PM Ilari Liusvaara
wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 05:38:59AM +, Raja ashok wrote:
> > Hi Victor & Alessandro,
> >
> > I have gone through the draft and I am having a doubt.
> >
> > > The extension only affects the Certificate message from the server.
> > > It
On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 05:38:59AM +, Raja ashok wrote:
> Hi Victor & Alessandro,
>
> I have gone through the draft and I am having a doubt.
>
> > The extension only affects the Certificate message from the server.
> > It does not change the format of the Certificate message sent by the
--
Senior Architect, Akamai Technologies
Member, OpenSSL Dev Team
IM: richs...@jabber.at Twitter: RichSalz
> Unless someone can show a legitimate case where zlib will
> consistently and notably outperform brotli, I don't see the point in defining
> it
> as an option.
As long as the protocol
On Wednesday, June 07, 2017 01:38:59 am Raja ashok wrote:
> So I suggest we should consider compression on client certificate message
> also.
+1
Additionally, there's one bit of the spec which I question the need for: zlib
support. Unless someone can show a legitimate case where zlib will consi
Hi Victor & Alessandro,
I have gone through the draft and I am having a doubt.
> The extension only affects the Certificate message from the server.
> It does not change the format of the Certificate message sent by the
> client.
This draft provides a mechanism to compress only the server
On Tue, 6 Jun 2017 09:20:03 +0200
Sean Turner wrote:
> I appears that we’ve got enough consensus/interest to adopt
> draft-ghedini-tls-certificate-compression-00 based on the WG session
> in Chicago and this thread:
Hi,
one aspects brought up in that thread was that there is already RFC
7924, w
I appears that we’ve got enough consensus/interest to adopt
draft-ghedini-tls-certificate-compression-00 based on the WG session in Chicago
and this thread:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/U5AmA9OerD_9zTBNWl7ZBC3-HOE
Authors,
Please submit draft-ietf-tls-certificate-compression at you
11 matches
Mail list logo
