> On Feb 20, 2018, at 14:50, Stewart Bryant wrote:
>
> Reviewer: Stewart Bryant
> Review result: Ready with Issues
>
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Pleas
> On Feb 20, 2018, at 05:44, Dan Romascanu wrote:
>
> Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
> Review result: Has Issues
>
> I am the assigned OPS-DIR reviewer for this draft. The OPS DIrectorate reviews
> a great part of the IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the OPS
> ADs.
> Please treat with
On 02/26/2018 11:20 AM, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>
>> On Feb 26, 2018, at 9:26 AM, Paul Wouters wrote:
>>
>> So it was decided to not use a full DNS packet format? And then since you
>> miss the structure of the Answer Section and Additional/Authority
>> Section, you require the "answer RR's" come f
On 02/27/2018 08:11 AM, Sean Turner wrote:
> There are two states for the Recommended column: YES and NO. I can go either
> way on whether
> marked as not recommended = NO
> not marked as recommended = NO
>
> WG - thoughts?
I thought we had always been clear that it was "not marked as
recommende
>I thought we had always been clear that it was "not marked as
> recommended", i.e., "we make no comment about its status".
That was my understanding to. The choices are "recommended" or "no comment"
___
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://w
> On Feb 27, 2018, at 09:51, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
>
> On 02/27/2018 08:11 AM, Sean Turner wrote:
>> There are two states for the Recommended column: YES and NO. I can go
>> either way on whether
>> marked as not recommended = NO
>> not marked as recommended = NO
>>
>> WG - thoughts?
>
> I
> On Feb 27, 2018, at 09:55, Salz, Rich wrote:
>
>
>> I thought we had always been clear that it was "not marked as
>> recommended", i.e., "we make no comment about its status".
>
> That was my understanding to. The choices are "recommended" or "no comment”
Yes, but we put “NO” as a colu
> On Feb 27, 2018, at 09:55, Sean Turner wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Feb 27, 2018, at 09:51, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
>>
>> On 02/27/2018 08:11 AM, Sean Turner wrote:
>>> There are two states for the Recommended column: YES and NO. I can go
>>> either way on whether
>>> marked as not recommended = NO
> On Feb 27, 2018, at 9:34 AM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
>
> There doesn't seem to be much interest in pinning-like schemes for TLS
> at this point (see also the "TLS server identity pinning" proposal from
> the SAAG/secdispatch session at IETF 100).
> And I do think the lack of authenticated denia
Op 27-02-18 om 16:12 schreef Viktor Dukhovni:
>
>
>> On Feb 27, 2018, at 9:34 AM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
>>
>> There doesn't seem to be much interest in pinning-like schemes for TLS
>> at this point (see also the "TLS server identity pinning" proposal from
>> the SAAG/secdispatch session at IETF
On Mon, Feb 26, 2018 at 12:19 PM, Viktor Dukhovni
wrote:
>
> I think that as it stands, lack of authenticated denial of existence is
> a *fatal* flaw in the protocol. I just don't see a sufficiently practical
> scenario in which this extension confers a useful security benefit.
Viktor,
Is this
Hi Sean,
Thanks for the answer and for addressing my comments.
Short observations are inserted.
Regards,
Dan
On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 4:11 PM, Sean Turner wrote:
>
>
> > On Feb 20, 2018, at 05:44, Dan Romascanu wrote:
> >
> > Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
> > Review result: Has Issues
> >
> > I a
> On Feb 27, 2018, at 10:47 AM, Willem Toorop wrote:
>
>> If this protocol has no denial of existence, I don't see any reason
>> for anyone to deploy it. Why publish something that's basically
>> useless?
>
> Well.. support of the option could be obligatory for new TLS services,
> like DNS ov
>> Minor issues:
>>
>> I think convention is to list the documents being updated in the Abstract,
>> but
>> cannot find any formal guidance.
>
> You’re right that is the convention, but it’s not required.
> draft-flanagan-7322bis is attempting to make including updates in the
> abstract a mu
On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Shumon Huque wrote:
>
>
> Several of us were well aware of this during the early days of the
> draft, but perhaps many folks did not fully appreciate the impacts
> until I elaborated on them last year, and added text that described
> the "adversary with fraudulen
> On Feb 20, 2018, at 05:44, Dan Romascanu wrote:
>
> Reviewer: Dan Romascanu
> Review result: Has Issues
>
> I am the assigned OPS-DIR reviewer for this draft. The OPS DIrectorate reviews
> a great part of the IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the OPS
> ADs.
> Please treat with t
On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 11:25:29AM -0500, Russ Housley wrote:
>
>
> Wouldn't it be sufficient to add a note a the bottom of the registry that
> says:
>
>If an item is marked as not recommended it does not necessarily mean
>that it is flawed, rather, it indicates that either the item has
> On Feb 27, 2018, at 11:21, Russ Housley wrote:
>
>
>>> Minor issues:
>>>
>>> I think convention is to list the documents being updated in the Abstract,
>>> but
>>> cannot find any formal guidance.
>>
>> You’re right that is the convention, but it’s not required.
>> draft-flanagan-7322bi
> On Feb 27, 2018, at 11:53, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 11:25:29AM -0500, Russ Housley wrote:
>>
>>
>> Wouldn't it be sufficient to add a note a the bottom of the registry that
>> says:
>>
>> If an item is marked as not recommended it does not necessarily mean
>>
Dear Sean Turner,
The session(s) that you have requested have been scheduled.
Below is the scheduled session information followed by
the original request.
tls Session 1 (2:30:00)
Wednesday, Morning Session I 0930-1200
Room Name: Blenheim size: 200
On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 11:24:31AM -0500, Shumon Huque wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Shumon Huque wrote:
> > Several of us were well aware of this during the early days of the
> > draft, but perhaps many folks did not fully appreciate the impacts
> > until I elaborated on them last ye
On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 05:36:12PM -0600, Nico Williams wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 11:24:31AM -0500, Shumon Huque wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 10:59 AM, Shumon Huque wrote:
> > > Several of us were well aware of this during the early days of the
> > > draft, but perhaps many folks did
22 matches
Mail list logo
