Hi Martin,
Thanks for the suggestions. Indeed, happy to incorporate changes in framing,
tone, etc. to better reflect the purpose of the document.
> At a high level, I think that this would be easier if it were more clearly
> framed as *recommendations*, especially when it comes to the format o
On Feb 12, 2020, at 11:24 PM, Rob Sayre wrote:
>
> Would it be ok to add a rationale to the "Goals" section around backward
> compatibility? I'm not sure how the compatibility points will interact with
> downgrade attacks.
For now I don't think we're envisioning anything different on downgrade
This website has a good summary of the candidates:
https://pqc-wiki.fau.edu/w/Special:DatabaseHome .
Quynh.
From: TLS on behalf of Martin Thomson
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2020 4:57 PM
To: Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL ; tls@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [TLS]
David Benjamin writes:
>Note that bignum libraries that perform leading-zero truncation
like OpenSSL, and some PKCS #11 libraries
>are unlikely to be suitable for cryptography anyway.
OK, I'll keep that in mind: OpenSSL and PKCS #11 are unlikely to be suitable
for cryptography :-).
Peter.
The authors of "Hybrid Key Exchange" have asked for adoption of their draft
as a WG item. Please state whether you support adoption of this draft as a
WG item by posting a message to the TLS list by 2359 UTC 28 February 2020.
Please include any additional information that is helpful in understandi
Hiya,
I said this in the other thread but I'll repeat a call
for a bit of clarity that's not normally needed:
On 13/02/2020 17:12, Joseph Salowey wrote:
> Adopting the draft means the working group thinks the topic is a good idea
> and the draft is a good place to start the work.
I think the dr
I support its adoption.
From: TLS on behalf of Joseph Salowey
Date: Thursday, February 13, 2020 at 12:13 PM
To: ""
Subject: [TLS] Call for Adoption: draft-stebila-tls-hybrid-design
The authors of "Hybrid Key Exchange" have asked for adoption of their draft as
a WG item. Please state wh
>I think the draft would be ok to adopt if we don't finish
it until the outcome from the NIST competition is known.
Otherwise I would be against adoption.
I think I agree with this, but am not sure. Can we have this on the agenda for
Vancouver?
_
On Wednesday, 12 February 2020 19:46:01 CET, Daniel Van Geest wrote:
Hi,
I’m looking for some clarification on unsupported_extension vs
illegal_parameter alerts in TLS 1.3.
RFC 8446 says:
If an implementation receives an extension
which it recognizes and which is not specified for the
On Fri, Feb 14, 2020, at 06:00, Salz, Rich wrote:
> >I think the draft would be ok to adopt if we don't finish
> it until the outcome from the NIST competition is known.
> Otherwise I would be against adoption.
>
> I think I agree with this, but am not sure. Can we have this on the
Hi Justice,
Thanks for reaching out and welcome. At this point, another implementation
of draft-02 wouldn't hurt, but it also likely won't contribute much to the
development process for this document. We've learned what we can from -02
and the upcoming draft version will likely be radically differ
I'm in favor of adopting this work.
Nick
On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 9:13 AM Joseph Salowey wrote:
> The authors of "Hybrid Key Exchange" have asked for adoption of their
> draft as a WG item. Please state whether you support adoption of this
> draft as a WG item by posting a message to the TLS li
On Thu, Feb 13, 2020 at 3:48 AM Douglas Stebila wrote:
> On Feb 12, 2020, at 11:24 PM, Rob Sayre wrote:
> >
> > Would it be ok to add a rationale to the "Goals" section around backward
> compatibility? I'm not sure how the compatibility points will interact with
> downgrade attacks.
>
> For now
TL;DR: I find it difficult to understand the second-to-last paragraph of the
Introduction, so I took a stab at revising it. Let me know if I should put it
in a pull request.
This is the paragraph I'm referring to:
"These dependencies cause problems in practice. Server operators often want to
I also support adoption of this draft. The concerns raised in the other thread
on this topic ([TLS] Requesting working group adoption of
draft-stebila-tls-hybrid-design) are irrelevant within the context of adopting
an informational draft, as it would be a "timely publication" of "general
infor
Hi,
This is just to let you know that Netdev 0x14 is back co-locating with IETF
107 in
Vancouver. There are several security related talks that may be of interest..
Note: Early bird registration is still open until 17th and that many other
talks, sessions, workshops are also happening
https://net
Hi,
I support adoption of this document.
Regards,
Valery Smyslov.
From: TLS [mailto:tls-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Joseph Salowey
Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2020 8:13 PM
To:
Subject: [TLS] Call for Adoption: draft-stebila-tls-hybrid-design
The authors of "Hybrid Key Exchange
17 matches
Mail list logo
