Thanks I will add these by the end of the day.
Yours,
Daniel
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 1:56 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> Thanks for the updates; the new revision addresses my concerns raised in
> the secdir review.
>
> However,
>
> % In addition, it is worth noting that TLS 1.0 [RFC2246] and TL1.2
Thanks for the updates; the new revision addresses my concerns raised in
the secdir review.
However,
% In addition, it is worth noting that TLS 1.0 [RFC2246] and TL1.2
% [RFC4346] splits the pre-master in two parts.
s/TL1.2/TLS 1.1/, and maybe the ending as "split the pre-master secret
into two
On Friday, May 19, 2017 04:18:03 pm Daniel Migault wrote:
> 1) The current document mentions I-D.ietf-tls-rfc4492bis and
> I-D.ietf-tls-tls13 as normative. We can wait for these documents to become
> RFCs, but we can also dowref them to informational reference if we want to
> move that document
