On 18/05/2020, 01:47, "Martin Thomson" wrote:
> The question is whether it is clear that these limits apply to the use
> of AEADs in TLS more generally. I think that is clear enough, but I
> doubt that people will pay any mind unless they are implementing TLS
> 1.3.
Yes, that's exactly my origin
I am glad this bikeshed was shorter than I expected. Because most people didn’t
have a strong preference and there might be some (possibly small) chance of
confusion, it seems like we should change the name to ETCH (Encrypted TLS
Client Hello).
spt
> On May 7, 2020, at 18:52, Christopher Wood
If we must change it, let's do ECH, as the T seems entirely superfluous.
After all, it's not TSNI.
-Ekr
On Tue, May 19, 2020 at 5:32 AM Sean Turner wrote:
> I am glad this bikeshed was shorter than I expected. Because most people
> didn’t have a strong preference and there might be some (possi
We chatted offline and updated the draft to refine some points:
https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-external-psk-importer/pull/36
Thanks for helping improving the document!
Best,
Chris
On Mon, Apr 27, 2020, at 7:08 AM, Hollenbeck, Scott wrote:
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Chr
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
As a data point, I was fairly confused when ECHO came up in conversation, and
had to stop to ask what it was. I think I would have had a better chance of
figuring it out from context or search if it were called ECH, but don't have a
strong preference for any specific name.
ECH does have a remar
