On Wednesday, 2 October 2019 00:15:13 CEST Peter Gutmann wrote:
> Hubert Kario writes:
> >a lax DER parser sounds like an oxymoron to me... :)
>
> That's why I assumed it was an accident/error. Writing a spec that relies
> on buggy parser implementations in order to work is asking for trouble.
The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8446,
"The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3".
--
You may review the report below and at:
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5868
--
Type: Technical
Re
On Tuesday, 1 October 2019 17:01:54 CEST Eric Rescorla wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 5:27 AM John Mattsson
> 40ericsson@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> > Dan Brown wrote:
> > > ANSI X9.62-2005 was withdrawn in 2015
> >
> > Ok, that TLS 1.3 is relying on a withdrawn publication that used to be
>
On Wednesday, 2 October 2019 13:18:07 CEST Hubert Kario wrote:
> On Tuesday, 1 October 2019 17:01:54 CEST Eric Rescorla wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 5:27 AM John Mattsson >
> > 40ericsson@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
> > > Dan Brown wrote:
> > > > ANSI X9.62-2005 was withdrawn in 2015
> > >
> On Oct 2, 2019, at 12:23, Hubert Kario wrote:
>
> Signed PGP part
> On Wednesday, 2 October 2019 13:18:07 CEST Hubert Kario wrote:
>> On Tuesday, 1 October 2019 17:01:54 CEST Eric Rescorla wrote:
>>> On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 5:27 AM John Mattsson >>
>>> 40ericsson@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>>
> On Oct 1, 2019, at 21:14, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 1:04 AM John Mattsson
> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I think draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate needs to update
> draft-ietf-rtcweb-security-arch as well.
>
> draft-ietf-rtcweb-security-arch-20 uses DTLS and even talk
Hiya,
On 02/10/2019 14:17, Sean Turner wrote:
> You can change the text, but I do not believe it will change the
> implementations. I would leave the text as is and NOT do an updates
> header.
WFM. I have executed that NOOP:-)
S.
0x5AB2FAF17B172BEA.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
si
Since this had support in the room, we would really like to get a sense if
there are any objections to this. Baring any negative comments, we’ll ask ekr
to merge this on 10/7.
spt
> On Oct 1, 2019, at 23:40, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
> As discussed in Montreal, I've prepared a PR
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Transport Layer Security WG of the IETF.
Title : Importing External PSKs for TLS
Authors : David Benjamin
Christopher A. Wo
This update includes recent feedback received on the list and GitHub. There are
three major changes:
- Target KDFs instead of hash algorithms when importing external PSKs
- Add an opaque "context" slot to the ImportedIdentity struct and describe its
use for Selfie mitigations
- Remove backwards
Oops. Here are the referenced links:
[1] https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-external-psk-importer/pull/10
[2] https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-external-psk-importer/issues/20
On Wed, Oct 2, 2019, at 6:54 AM, Christopher Wood wrote:
> This update includes recent feedback received on th
Hi,
Sean Turner wrote:
> "You can change the text, but I do not believe it will change the
> implementations."
I would much rather have a future proof RFC that forbids negotiation of DTLS
1.0 with the knowledge that some implementations will temporary violate that,
than having an RFC that long
I concur with Hubert, and think that DER in this context is perfectly OK.
On 10/2/19, 6:59 AM, "TLS on behalf of Hubert Kario" wrote:
On Wednesday, 2 October 2019 00:15:13 CEST Peter Gutmann wrote:
> Hubert Kario writes:
> >a lax DER parser sounds like an oxymoron to me... :)
>
Hi,
Please find some comments on the draft.
In the introduction, I believe both limitations may be merged into one
limitation which is the number of ticket is a server only decision. The
purpose of the extension is the client providing information so the server
can pick the appropriated number.
Hi Daniel,
Please see inline below.
On Wed, Oct 2, 2019, at 1:42 PM, Daniel Migault wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Please find some comments on the draft.
>
> In the introduction, I believe both limitations may be merged into one
> limitation which is the number of ticket is a server only decision. The
>
Hi folks,
draft-ietf-tls-exported-authenticator requires some IANA changes that were not
discussed during WGLC. The proposed changes are below. Please let the list know
by next week (10/9) if you object to them, and if so, please explain why.
> Value: EXPORTER-server authenticator handshake con
Hi,
Please see my comments.
Yours,
Daniel
On Wed, Oct 2, 2019 at 4:55 PM Christopher Wood wrote:
> Hi Daniel,
>
> Please see inline below.
>
> On Wed, Oct 2, 2019, at 1:42 PM, Daniel Migault wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Please find some comments on the draft.
> >
> > In the introduction, I believe bo
On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 10:56:00AM -0400, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> I've read the draft, it looks quite useful and reasonable. It would
> be good to see this published.
+1
> I have one idea (implemented in OpenSSL 1.1.1 on the server side)
> that may be worth mentioning in this context (and perha
On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 3:54 AM Christopher Wood wrote:
>
> > I understand the meaning of count is the higher limit of ticket and the
> > server can provides any tickets between 0 and count. If that is
> > correct, this could be clearly stated and indication to chose an
> > appropriated value for
On Wed, Oct 2, 2019, at 8:08 PM, Rob Sayre wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 3:54 AM Christopher Wood wrote:
> >
> > > I understand the meaning of count is the higher limit of ticket and the
> > > server can provides any tickets between 0 and count. If that is
> > > correct, this could be clea
On Wed, Oct 2, 2019, at 4:04 PM, Nico Williams wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 01, 2019 at 10:56:00AM -0400, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> > I've read the draft, it looks quite useful and reasonable. It would
> > be good to see this published.
>
> +1
>
> > I have one idea (implemented in OpenSSL 1.1.1 on the se
> On Oct 2, 2019, at 11:20 PM, Christopher Wood wrote:
>
> Asking for one upon resumption seems reasonable to me. Thanks to you and
> Viktor for bringing up this case!
Thanks! Much appreciated.
My other point, which I probably obscured in too many words, is
that a client that prefers to re-us
On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 10:19 AM Christopher Wood
wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 2, 2019, at 8:08 PM, Rob Sayre wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 3:54 AM Christopher Wood
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > I understand the meaning of count is the higher limit of ticket and
> the
> > > > server can provides any ticke
23 matches
Mail list logo
