It would in my
view be more pragmatic to state that some technical solutions are
better than other.
Cheers, John
From: TLS mailto:tls-boun...@ietf.org>> on
behalf of John Mattsson
mailto:40ericsson@dmarc.ietf.org>>
Date: Tuesday, 16 May 2023 at 15:59
To: Salz, Rich
mailto:40aka
ohn
>
> From: TLS mailto:tls-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of
> John Mattsson
> mailto:40ericsson....@dmarc.ietf.org>>
> Date: Tuesday, 16 May 2023 at 15:59
> To: Salz, Rich
> mailto:40akamai@dmarc.ietf.org>>,
> tls@ietf.org<mailto:tls@ietf.or
nstructive if IETF states
that all visibility solutions are bad. It would in my view be more pragmatic to
state that some technical solutions are better than other.
Cheers,
John
From: TLS on behalf of John Mattsson
Date: Tuesday, 16 May 2023 at 15:59
To: Salz, Rich , tls@ietf.org
Subject: Re
ehalf of John Mattsson
Date: Tuesday, 16 May 2023 at 15:59
To: Salz, Rich , tls@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [TLS] NIST Draft comments period: Addressing Visibility Challenges
with TLS 1.3
Hi Rich,
Good that you inform the TLS WG. I was planning to do that but forgot. Ericsson
is likely to provide th
Hi Rich,
Good that you inform the TLS WG. I was planning to do that but forgot. Ericsson
is likely to provide the comments in the link below. We think it is good that
NIST is doing this project, visibility is a problem, but our position is that
reuse of key shares is not an acceptable solution.
