Hi John,
There are several orders associated with the settlement agreement -
which is relevant here. You need a PACER account to access the docket.
It was a complicated case that stretched over several years and cost
ETSI a considerable amount of money - and involved several companies.
Tru
On 08/03/2020 14:46, Tony Rutkowski wrote:
>
> TLS is particular has a history going back to 1986 when the platform was
> first announced by the USG and the TLS specification was instantiated
> initially in the GOSIP standards and then in ITU/ISO standards.
That's false. I've seen it repeated a
Hiya,
Thanks for the new ECHO PR. [1] I think this is the
right direction but I have three issues with how it's
done in the PR right now that I think would benefit
from list discussion before a new I-D is produced or
the PR is merged.
1) Padding. This should be easy but somehow seems to be
hard;
Thanks for raising these issues! Please see inline below.
On 8 Mar 2020, at 8:18, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Hiya,
Thanks for the new ECHO PR. [1] I think this is the
right direction but I have three issues with how it's
done in the PR right now that I think would benefit
from list discussion befo
In article <9af29b8f-856e-eb3f-6f12-e4cb0a866...@cs.tcd.ie> you write:
>On 08/03/2020 14:46, Tony Rutkowski wrote:
>>
>> TLS is particular has a history going back to 1986 when the platform was
>> first announced by the USG and the TLS specification was instantiated
>> initially in the GOSIP stand
Stephen,
It is not false. It is simply largely unknown because of subsequent
IETF related narratives that choose to omit the history. The documents
are available online - although portions remain classified. A request
is pending for their declassification and release. You can find some of
On 08/03/2020 16:35, Tony Rutkowski wrote:
> Stephen,
>
> It is not false.
We disagree. SDNS != TLS. TLS was SSL with the middle
S standing for socket, which wasn't part of SDNS or
GOSIP that I recall.
> It is simply largely unknown because of subsequent
> IETF related narratives that choose
Hiya,
On 08/03/2020 16:07, Christopher Wood wrote:
> Thanks for raising these issues! Please see inline below.
>
> On 8 Mar 2020, at 8:18, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
>> Hiya,
>>
>> Thanks for the new ECHO PR. [1] I think this is the right direction
>> but I have three issues with how it's done i
On 8 Mar 2020, at 10:14, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Hiya,
On 08/03/2020 16:07, Christopher Wood wrote:
Thanks for raising these issues! Please see inline below.
On 8 Mar 2020, at 8:18, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Hiya,
Thanks for the new ECHO PR. [1] I think this is the right direction
but I have
Moar below... :-)
On 08/03/2020 17:25, Christopher Wood wrote:
>
>
> On 8 Mar 2020, at 10:14, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
>> Hiya,
>>
>> On 08/03/2020 16:07, Christopher Wood wrote:
>>> Thanks for raising these issues! Please see inline below.
>>>
>>> On 8 Mar 2020, at 8:18, Stephen Farrell wro
Hi Stephen,
Amusing attempt to rewrite history. Your disagreement means nothing,
fortunately, and folks can claim FUD all they want.
The reality is that the actions in this group are facing increasing
exposure to antitrust, tort, consumer protection, and tax-related
actions. If you don't w
Hi Folks.
This isn't a topic for this working group list. Please take the discussion
elsewhere.
Thanks,
Joe
On Sun, Mar 8, 2020 at 12:41 PM Tony Rutkowski
wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
>
> Amusing attempt to rewrite history. Your disagreement means nothing,
> fortunately, and folks can claim FUD all
On 3/8/2020 10:14 AM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
> I'm questioning whether that's a good goal or not. In my
> analysis of the various extensions, only SNI and ALPN seem
> to offer immediate value.
Uh, No. First, we do have fingerprinting attacks that look at the
pattern of extensions. If the extensio
On Sun, Mar 8, 2020 at 9:08 AM Christopher Wood wrote:
> Thanks for raising these issues! Please see inline below.
>
Were the comments on the previous PR considered in drafting this one? Some
of them were just nits, but others were substantive.
If there's no answer, I'd be happy to inspect the
On Sun, Mar 8, 2020, at 7:30 PM, Rob Sayre wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 8, 2020 at 9:08 AM Christopher Wood wrote:
> > Thanks for raising these issues! Please see inline below.
>
> Were the comments on the previous PR considered in drafting this one?
> Some of them were just nits, but others were substa
15 matches
Mail list logo
