> On Feb 29, 2020, at 22:19, Nico Williams wrote:
>
> On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 04:29:38PM -0800, David Schinazi wrote:
>> On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 2:57 PM Nico Williams wrote:
>>> On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 12:40:43PM -0800, David Schinazi wrote:
However, I don't think we should add a second c
The changes proposed by Viktor in [1] address my concern and I am happy
with those.
I am also fine to to have further considerations in another draft as the
current structure let this to be document be moved forward.
I think it is important we provide means to minimize the resource involved,
and
On Sun, Mar 1, 2020 at 11:20 PM Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 01, 2020 at 10:39:07PM -0800, Rob Sayre wrote:
>
> > > Agreed, and strongly so with the last sentence.
> >
> > None of these messages have addressed the chairs' suggestion:
> >
> > "Consider adoption of an individual draft that
On Sun, Mar 01, 2020 at 10:39:07PM -0800, Rob Sayre wrote:
> > Agreed, and strongly so with the last sentence.
>
> None of these messages have addressed the chairs' suggestion:
>
> "Consider adoption of an individual draft that describes an extension for
> hinting ticket reuse. This draft will a
On Sun, Mar 1, 2020 at 6:16 AM Salz, Rich
wrote:
> >I don't think even that is correct. Without a consensus call we don't
> know. Viktor has raised serious concerns and a simple fix.
>
> Agreed, and strongly so with the last sentence.
>
None of these messages have addressed the chairs'
>I don't think even that is correct. Without a consensus call we don't
know. Viktor has raised serious concerns and a simple fix.
Agreed, and strongly so with the last sentence.
___
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/
On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 04:29:38PM -0800, David Schinazi wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 2:57 PM Nico Williams wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 12:40:43PM -0800, David Schinazi wrote:
> > > However, I don't think we should add a second count in this extension.
> > > Allowing ticket reuse is not
My personal opinion is that reuse is clearly out of scope,
especially given the diverging opinions in the working
group on this topic.
I'm going to let the chairs step in and let us know what
their view of the scope is.
David
On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 4:50 PM Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
> On Sat, Feb
On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 04:34:17PM -0800, David Schinazi wrote:
> I think that what you bring up here has value, but I do not see it in
> scope of draft-ietf-tls-ticket-request.
I don't see how it can be out of scope. The abstract clearly
puts it in scope:
TLS session tickets enable stateles
On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 04:29:38PM -0800, David Schinazi wrote:
> Furthermore, I still think the topic of reuse is out of scope for
> draft-ietf-tls-ticket-request.
But is not at all out of scope. This extension is negotiating ticket
requirements between client and server. It is not possible fo
On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 2:28 PM Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
> But the second count is not just or even primarily for reuse, it is also
> useful for the non-reuse case as explained in the new text. The fact
> that it then possible to cleanly express reuse is a byproduct, and I
> also don't mean to enc
On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 2:57 PM Nico Williams wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 12:40:43PM -0800, David Schinazi wrote:
> > However, I don't think we should add a second count in this extension.
> > Allowing ticket reuse is not something we have consensus for in the
>^^
On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 12:40:43PM -0800, David Schinazi wrote:
> However, I don't think we should add a second count in this extension.
> Allowing ticket reuse is not something we have consensus for in the
^^^
Did I miss a consensus call or s
On Sat, Feb 29, 2020 at 12:40:43PM -0800, David Schinazi wrote:
> I like the editorial changes in your PR #18, as they do a good job of
> explaining things.
Thanks! I could add a bit more text to guide client implementations on
how to update their ticket caches in response to tickets from the
se
Hi Viktor,
I like the editorial changes in your PR #18, as they do a good job of
explaining things.
However, I don't think we should add a second count in this extension.
Allowing ticket
reuse is not something we have consensus for in the WG, and I would like to
see this
discussion happen in the T
On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 11:23:48AM -0500, Sean Turner wrote:
> * Consider the PR: [1]. This PR explains that when racing connections, the
> client will not necessarily know the number of tickets it will “consume”, so
> it should either have enough tickets for two subsequent handshake
> resumpt
The PR looks good to me.
___
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
Can we modify the existing draft to say 0-200 tickets not 0-255?
___
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
Hi!
Based on Tommy Pauly’s suggestion [0], Joe and I believe that the best way for
us to get to the place where we can declare rough consensus is to:
* Consider the PR: [1]. This PR explains that when racing connections, the
client will not necessarily know the number of tickets it will “consu
19 matches
Mail list logo
