e to digest and think through the
> complex
> issues
> these drafts raise.
>
> And I think and interim to focus on clarifying these important issues
> would be
> helpful.
>
> -Tim
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Andrei Popov
> > Sent: Monday,
h ; Dennis Jackson
> ; TLS List
> Subject: [TLS]Re: Discussions on Trust Anchor Negotiation at IETF 120
>
> I agree that an interim meeting would be useful. It seems unlikely that we
> will
> make much progress on the mailing list alone.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Andrei
&g
: Discussions on Trust Anchor Negotiation at IETF 120
>The Trust Anchor Identifiers draft was first published only 4 weeks
>ago, received less than 10 minutes of discussion in the meeting
I strongly agree with this. Well, actually, everyone should be able to agree
with this because it's
On Sat, Jul 27, 2024 at 06:56:17PM -0700, Dennis Jackson wrote:
> On 26/07/2024 15:24, Sophie Schmieg wrote:
>
> > I don't think trust anchor negotiation needs a lot more discussion, over
> > what has happened already. All in all, I think it's a good mechanism
> > that is fairly well defined and i
>The Trust Anchor Identifiers draft was first published only 4 weeks ago,
> received less than 10 minutes of discussion in the meeting
I strongly agree with this. Well, actually, everyone should be able to agree
with this because it's two factual statements. :)
I think the challenge of having a
On 26/07/2024 15:24, Sophie Schmieg wrote:
I don't think trust anchor negotiation needs a lot more discussion,
over what has happened already. All in all, I think it's a good
mechanism that is fairly well defined and it's not clear to me how it
would benefit from an interim.
The Trust Anchor
On 26/07/2024 15:24, Sophie Schmieg wrote:
I don't think trust anchor negotiation needs a lot more discussion,
over what has happened already. All in all, I think it's a good
mechanism that is fairly well defined and it's not clear to me how it
would benefit from an interim.
The Trust Anchor
On 26/07/2024 15:24, Sophie Schmieg wrote:
I don't think trust anchor negotiation needs a lot more discussion,
over what has happened already. All in all, I think it's a good
mechanism that is fairly well defined and it's not clear to me how it
would benefit from an interim.
The Trust Anchor
I agree there have been a lot of electrons spilled. However despite
that there's a lot of questions about this negotiation mechanism's
impacts on browsers with lesser market share, site behavior, CA
support, command line utilities (a nightmare) that haven't really been
discussed and really deserves
For what it is worth, agree with Sophie, trust anchor negation is needed
regardless of PQC, and tying the two topics together artificially would not
make either problem domain easier to solve.
Ryan
On Fri, Jul 26, 2024 at 3:28 PM Sophie Schmieg wrote:
> I don't think trust anchor negotiation ne
I don't think trust anchor negotiation needs a lot more discussion, over
what has happened already. All in all, I think it's a good mechanism that
is fairly well defined and it's not clear to me how it would benefit from
an interim.
PQ TLS on the other hand has a lot of open questions about things
On 24/07/2024 12:59, Tim Hollebeek wrote:
I think this is a good summary. I want to support this sort of effort, in part
because it's very similar to some other ideas my boss and I were pushing about
five years ago. Something similar to this would solve, but also cause, lots of
problems. I
I think this is a good summary. I want to support this sort of effort, in part
because it's very similar to some other ideas my boss and I were pushing about
five years ago. Something similar to this would solve, but also cause, lots of
problems. It's not clear whether the net result is bette
On Tue, Jul 23, 2024 at 09:51:04PM -0700, Dennis Jackson wrote:
>
> Ahead of the meeting tomorrow, I want to highlight some of the questions
> which I think we need to find and agree on answers for:
The following are my own opinions.
> - What are the problems that we solving?
* Allowing server
14 matches
Mail list logo
