Re: [TLS] Last call comments and WG Chair review of draft-ietf-tls-ecdhe-psk-aead

2017-04-11 Thread Joseph Salowey
Hi Daniel, Please submit a revised draft with the changes below. Thanks, Joe On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 11:08 AM, Daniel Migault < daniel.miga...@ericsson.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Thank you for the review and comments received. Given the discussion our > understanding was that the consensus was to r

Re: [TLS] WGLC: draft-ietf-tls-tls13-19

2017-04-11 Thread Eric Rescorla
> It was already mentioned that the “major differences from TLS 1.2” > section should not be a changelog, but I agree with that. Yes, this is on my plate. > Should Figure 4 (“message flow for a zero round trip handshake”) > include a “+ early_data” for the server’s flight? (The legend for > Fig

[TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-ecdhe-psk-aead-02.txt

2017-04-11 Thread internet-drafts
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Transport Layer Security of the IETF. Title : ECDHE_PSK with AES-GCM and AES-CCM Cipher Suites for Transport Layer Security (TLS) Authors : John Matt

Re: [TLS] WGLC: draft-ietf-tls-tls13-19

2017-04-11 Thread Benjamin Kaduk
On 04/11/2017 12:32 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > It was already mentioned that the “major differences from TLS 1.2” > > section should not be a changelog, but I agree with that. > > Yes, this is on my plate. > > > > Should Figure 4 (“message flow for a zero round trip handshake”) > > include a “+ e

Re: [TLS] Last call comments and WG Chair review of draft-ietf-tls-ecdhe-psk-aead

2017-04-11 Thread Daniel Migault
Hi Joe, Thanks for the reminder. I just posted it. Let me know if there is anything I have to do. Yours, Daniel On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 11:21 AM, Joseph Salowey wrote: > Hi Daniel, > > Please submit a revised draft with the changes below. > > Thanks, > > Joe > > > On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 11:08

Re: [TLS] WGLC: draft-ietf-tls-tls13-19

2017-04-11 Thread Eric Rescorla
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 11:27 AM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > > Yeah, I guess I snuck that fix into #936. So much for keeping things > separate... > > > Page 113 still has the “[[NOTE: TLS 1.3 needs a new channel binding > > definition that has not yet been defined.]]”, which should not make it > > i

Re: [TLS] comments on draft-ietf-tls-tls13-19

2017-04-11 Thread Eric Rescorla
Thanks for your comments. > 1.2. Major Differences from TLS 1.2 > It is very hard to make use of this section as is. It is organized on > per-draft, while it would be expected to have the changes of the > document since TLS 1.2. It contains phrases like "Remove spurious > requirement to implemen

Re: [TLS] comments on draft-ietf-tls-tls13-19

2017-04-11 Thread Ilari Liusvaara
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 01:47:08PM -0700, Eric Rescorla wrote: > Thanks for your comments. > > > 4.1.2. It is not defined what a server should do if encountered with a > > ProtocolVersion of TLS 1.3. > > https://tlswg.github.io/tls13-spec/#supported-versions says: > >If this extension is not

Re: [TLS] comments on draft-ietf-tls-tls13-19

2017-04-11 Thread Eric Rescorla
On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 2:25 PM, Ilari Liusvaara wrote: > On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 01:47:08PM -0700, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > Thanks for your comments. > > > > > 4.1.2. It is not defined what a server should do if encountered with a > > > ProtocolVersion of TLS 1.3. > > > > https://tlswg.github.io

[TLS] IETF-98 Minutes

2017-04-11 Thread Joseph Salowey
Draft meeting minutes are now available in the draft proceedings: https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/98/minutes/minutes-98-tls-00.txt Let me know if you have an additions/corrections. Thanks, Joe ___ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mai