On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 4:57 PM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 01:45:34PM +0200, Daiki Ueno wrote:
> > Hello,
> >
> > I have a question about handling the psk_key_exchange_mode extension.
> >
> > 4.2.9. Pre-Shared Key Exchange Modes says:
> >
> > This extension also restricts t
On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 03:01:34PM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2018, Shumon Huque wrote:
>
> [ not going to repeat my technical arguments here, just going to comment
> on process ]
>
> >First, there is no agreement that your reason for doing pinning,
> >i.e. that DANE needs downgr
On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 01:40:25PM -0400, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>
>
> We may yet have to see how much support or opposition the follow-on
> document will meet. What continues to be puzzling is resistance to
> adding a field that imposes negligible burden on the present spec,
> and would clearly
Dear Team,
Some of the SSL providers are already rolled out TLS 1.3 ( OpenSSL , BoringSSL
etc) .
Does the TLS 1.3 draft is finalized yet ?
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tls-tls13-28
Regards,
Ipsito
___
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://
The IESG has approved the draft, but it still needs to complete the RFC editor
phase where copy editing, changing of the boilerplate, assigning an RFC #, etc
gets done to make it an RFC. You can see the RFC editor’s queue here:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/current_queue.php
spt
> On May 3, 2018
Martin,
We’ll get this WGLC started soon.
spt
> On May 1, 2018, at 21:18, Martin Thomson wrote:
>
> Updated to -28. Hopefully this is the last revision before we go to RFC on
> TLS 1.3. I'd say we're at the point that WGLC makes sense.
> On Wed, May 2, 2018 at 11:12 AM wrote:
>
>
>> A New
> On May 3, 2018, at 8:54 AM, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
>
> (2) It is asking the WG to take on faith and Paul/Viktor/Nico's authority
> that the 16-bit value (in hours) is sufficient, and no other fields or
> semantic changes would be needed. While I (and presumably others) do have
> a great deal
BoringSSL and OpenSSL have are draft versions which use different version
numbers from the final RFC, so as not to collide. Early experimental
deployment is generally useful to help inform the final standard and flush
out any non-compliant TLS 1.2 implementations that may cause deployment
difficult
> On Apr 21, 2018, at 10:25, Sean Turner wrote:
>
>
>> On Apr 19, 2018, at 16:32, Sean Turner wrote:
>>
>> All,
>>
>> This is the working group last call for the "Exported Authenticators in TLS"
>> draft available at
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-exported-authenticato
Does anyone have any comments about the draft, criticisms, or votes of
support?
Nick
On Thu, May 3, 2018 at 1:12 PM Sean Turner wrote:
>
>
> > On Apr 21, 2018, at 10:25, Sean Turner wrote:
> >
> >
> >> On Apr 19, 2018, at 16:32, Sean Turner wrote:
> >>
> >> All,
> >>
> >> This is the working
The meeting minutes have been posted. If you have any suggestions please send
them in.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/minutes-101-tls-201803191740-00
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/101/materials/minutes-101-tls-201803210930-00
spt
__
I've already provided enough input on this draft, but I sent in a few
editorial PRs.
Otherwise, this looks fine to go from my perspective. I would like to see
some other opinions though, I'm probably too close to this.
___
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
12 matches
Mail list logo
