Hiya,
On 19/12/17 01:59, Salz, Rich wrote:
> However, since extension numbers are essentially infinite, this WG may
> consider renumbering key_share to avoid the issue.
>
>> I think this would be fine, but not imperative.
>
> I think it would almost be hypocritical if we did not do it.
>
I'm
“dropped as a bad idea” is an interesting end-state. Also “on hold for now”
(which is how I want to see the TLS-breaking proposals).
Having more I-D workflow options seems like something the IESG should take up.
___
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
h
Hiya,
On 19/12/17 13:56, Salz, Rich wrote:
> “dropped as a bad idea” is an interesting end-state. Also “on hold
> for now” (which is how I want to see the TLS-breaking proposals).
>
> Having more I-D workflow options seems like something the IESG should
> take up.
>
Well, TBH I doubt it'd be
> I'm not sure I agree renumbering is the right reaction, though I don't
> object to
> that. This could be a case where it's overall better that those specific
> devices
> suffer breakage, and hopefully then do get firmware updated to support
> TLS1.3 or TLS-without-extended-random-or-dual-ec
>
On Tue, Dec 19, 2017 at 5:07 AM, Stephen Farrell
wrote:
> I'm not sure I agree renumbering is the right reaction,
> though I don't object to that. This could be a case where
> it's overall better that those specific devices suffer
> breakage, and hopefully then do get firmware updated to
> suppor
