Hi,
> - Page 110 (appendix D.1): I am not quite sure if the term "session key"
> is needed at all. IMO, it is just a synonym for "master secret".
> My proposal is to replace "session key" by "master key" throughout the
> complete document.
[JG] Sorry, "master key" is wrong. I meant s/session ke
> > - Page 108 (appendix C.4): "If an implementation negotiates use of TLS
> 1.2, then negotiation of
> > cipher suites also supported by TLS 1.3 SHOULD be preferred, if
> > available."
> > TLS cipher suites for TLS1.3 and TLS1.2 are disjunctive, in my
> understanding. Therefore I think this
On 12/15/2016 07:32 AM, Guballa Jens (ETAS-PSC/ECS) wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I had a closer look at the TLS1.3-18-draft, and I would like to provide some
> comments.
>
> My overall impression is that too less attention has been put on a clear and
> precise terminology.
>
Yes, that has not been a foc
On 12/13/2016 11:56 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On 14 December 2016 at 16:42, Yoav Nir wrote:
>> Aren’t we going to have separate registries for 1.2 and 1.3? We don’t want
>> to force anyone to make the changes you had made (as part of 1.3) just to
>> get EdDSA..And I need to request things fro
