On 15/10/15 00:04, Watson Ladd wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 14, 2015 at 6:43 PM, Matt Caswell wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 14/10/15 21:42, Martin Thomson wrote:
>>> On 14 October 2015 at 13:29, David Benjamin wrote:
If you really absolutely must support interleave and can't avoid it, I
think
it b
On 15/10/15 00:06, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On 14 October 2015 at 15:43, Matt Caswell wrote:
>> "highly dangerous idea"
>
> Wrong Martin.
Oops. Sorry.
> I agree that there is a need for caution, but in
> reality, it's not like you can use renegotiation to hand-off to
> someone else entirely.
Is the particular interop problem that you want to address
caused by a necessity to really process application data and
handshake data with arbitrary interleave,
or is it rather a problem of getting back into half-duplex operation,
i.e. a client being able to continue receiving application data
up
As you might know, CFRG has been working on new curves (the document
has been sent to IRSG) and is working on signatures (main issues seem
to be selecting prehash for prehashed version of 448-bit signatures
and KDF for 448-bit signatures).
I have been thinking how to integrate this work into TLS.
On 15/10/15 14:00, Martin Rex wrote:
> Is the particular interop problem that you want to address
> caused by a necessity to really process application data and
> handshake data with arbitrary interleave,
>
> or is it rather a problem of getting back into half-duplex operation,
> i.e. a client b
On Thu, Oct 15, 2015 at 12:17 PM, Dave Garrett
wrote:
> On Thursday, October 15, 2015 09:09:39 am Ilari Liusvaara wrote:
> > So, there are four primitives: Ed25519, Ed25519ph, Ed448 and
> > Ed448ph. And keys MUST NOT be mixed between those.
> >
> > I propose the following:
> > - EdDSA uses one Si
The OPTLS paper (preprint) explaining the rationale of the protocol and its
analysis is posted here: http://eprint.iacr.org/2015/978.
The OPTLS design provides the basis for the handshake modes specified in the
current TLS 1.3 draft including 0-RTT, 1-RTT variants, and PSK modes (client
authentica
On Mon 2015-10-12 09:18:17 -0400, Yaron Sheffer wrote:
> I'm not familiar enough with TACK at the moment. I can write something
> up, or if you'd like to contribute text, that'll be awesome.
i'm not up-to-speed yet either, and am unlikely to be able to get to
this soon, sorry!
> IMO persisting t
