On Fri, Apr 29, 2016 at 8:35 AM, Guballa, Jens (Nokia - DE) <
jens.guba...@nokia.com> wrote:
> Hi Eric,
>
>
>
> See below.
>
>
>
> *From:* TLS [mailto:tls-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *EXT Eric Rescorla
> *Sent:* Dienstag, 26. April 2016 19:46
> *To:* tls@ietf.org
> *Subject:* [TLS] Review of d
Hi Eric,
See below.
From: TLS [mailto:tls-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of EXT Eric Rescorla
Sent: Dienstag, 26. April 2016 19:46
To: tls@ietf.org
Subject: [TLS] Review of draft-guballa-tls-terminology-03
I recently reviewed draft-guballa-tls-terminology-03. Comments below.
OVERALL
I
I share the more broadly-stated concern that this draft
introduces terminology and architectural framings that
don't match how things work either in practice or in
existing documents. I understand that the authors are
looking for a tool to get a better handle on the protocol,
but if there's a nee
I share ekr's concern about a separate document defining terms that are needed
to understand the official spec.
___
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
Hello Eric,
thanks for starting the discussion in getting the TLS and DTLS terms clarified
and fixed!
Just a quick reply today on the overall approach before commenting (or my
colleagues) on the individual terms.
1st There are two groups working on (D)TLS specifications: the inner circle of
TL
