On Fri 2019-11-22 05:13:13 +, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> I'm not sure if this draft ought specify behaviour for
> such clients, but I can try add text describing the various
> cases I guess. (If that text were to stay in, then I'd
> guess that it'll make this document too long to include
> in the
Daniel Kahn Gillmor:
> On Fri 2019-11-22 05:13:13 +, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>> I'm not sure if this draft ought specify behaviour for
>> such clients, but I can try add text describing the various
>> cases I guess. (If that text were to stay in, then I'd
>> guess that it'll make this documen
On 21/11/2019 08:59, Matt Caswell wrote:
> If you take the line that "anything specified for TLSv1.2 is implicitly
> ok for DTLSv1.2 unless stated otherwise", then I at least think an RFC
> should have a minimal nod towards DTLS. At least to give the message
> that "yes, we have considered this
On Friday, 22 November 2019 03:25:24 CET, David Benjamin wrote:
On Fri, Nov 22, 2019 at 8:35 AM Salz, Rich wrote:
...
SHA-1 signature hashes in TLS 1.2" draft available
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-md5-sha1-deprecate/.
Please review the document and send your comments to th
On Thursday, 21 November 2019 23:41:36 CET, Sean Turner wrote:
All,
This is the working group last call for the "Deprecating MD5
and SHA-1 signature hashes in TLS 1.2" draft available
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-md5-sha1-deprecate/.
Please review the document and send you
