On Wed, Dec 2, 2020, 3:18 PM Ackermann, Michael wrote:
>
> Barbara,
> Thanks.
> And I think I was aware of all you state below regarding TLS, and apologize
> for any related confusion regarding IPv6, even though, for the purposes of my
> comment, they are similar.
>
>
> I don't disagree with any
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
Ow! Mike is my friend. Don't go dissing my friend!
I think the problem in communication we've just experienced is because Mike
strayed away from Last Call discussion on a specific document, to
asking/discussing a more general question of how IETF can better communicate
with enterprises and perh
Document: draft-vvv-tls-cross-sni-resumption-00.txt
I think we should adopt this draft. Some review comments below.
S 1.
Section 4.2.11). However, in the absence of additional signals, it
discourages using a session ticket when the SNI value does not match
([RFC8446], Section 4.6.1), as
On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 1:16 PM Eric Rescorla wrote:
>If a client certificate has been associated with the session, the
>client MUST use the same policy on whether to present said
>certificate to the server as if it were a new TLS session. For
>instance, if the client would show a
On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 11:12 AM David Benjamin
wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 1:16 PM Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
>>If a client certificate has been associated with the session, the
>>client MUST use the same policy on whether to present said
>>certificate to the server as if it were a n
*I'm not sure if it's ever been written down anywhere (probably should
be...), but I think resumption is pretty much universally interpreted as
authenticating as the identities presented over the original connection, client
and server. That means that, independent of this draft, the client
A PR with the proposed change is here:
https://github.com/tlswg/dtls-conn-id/pull/77
Please have a look and let the list know if you object to the change. Absent
objection, we'll merge it and move the document forward.
Thanks,
Chris
On Tue, Nov 17, 2020, at 9:27 PM, Sean Turner wrote:
> All
Hmmm... I think it probably goes in this draft, but I'm open to being wrong.
On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 12:46 PM Salz, Rich wrote:
>
>- I'm not sure if it's ever been written down anywhere (probably
>should be...), but I think resumption is pretty much universally
>interpreted as authen
I think, like the tracking issue, it should go in both. (I wrote
https://github.com/tlswg/tls13-spec/pull/1205 to try to capture the
tracking case.) This draft should definitely (re)-state it because TLS
preferences are most common keyed by domain name. So even if it's in TLS
itself, it's worth emp
FYI, the -06 draft satisfies all my concerns.
Thanks
Brian Carpenter
On 07-Oct-20 15:24, Brian Carpenter via Datatracker wrote:
> Reviewer: Brian Carpenter
> Review result: Ready with Issues
>
> Gen-ART Last Call review of draft-ietf-tls-external-psk-importer-05
>
> I am the assigned Gen-ART
* Hmmm... I think it probably goes in this draft, but I'm open to being
wrong.
That’s okay with me.
___
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
Hi TLS and HTTP friends,
At the last HTTPWG interim, there was a question of why one would want
something like ALPS (draft-vvv-tls-alps) for HTTP SETTINGS
(draft-vvv-httpbis-alps) over TLS 1.3 half-RTT data. I know we've also had
some discussion on this topic in the TLSWG as well. At the HTTP meet
As Barbara builds her confidence for the IETF list and while we have Mike's
attention-
Mike, you commented "More, it is a lack of understanding of how things work
within Enterprise Networks and the lack of Enterprise engagement in Standards
Development processes. And finally, this may not be a
Sorry for the delay in responding. Tough day at the ranch. Just getting
caught up now (or trying).
Barbara, thanks for your response on my behalf and you are correct, I am not
making any recommended content changes to the draft at all, and I am not
arguing against the current text, as Wat
On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 2:38 PM Ackermann, Michael
wrote:
> The enterprise perspective is not usually considered or understood at IETF
>
I think that perspective is both considered and understood, but not usually
accommodated.
I can't even imagine shipping TLS 1.2 for anything at this point, and
I support adoption of draft-vvv-tls-cross-sni-resumption.
David
On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 1:49 PM Salz, Rich
wrote:
>
>
>- Hmmm... I think it probably goes in this draft, but I'm open to
>being wrong.
>
>
>
> That’s okay with me.
> ___
> TLS mail
This email starts the working group last call for "Guidance for External
PSK Usage in TLS", located here:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tls-external-psk-guidance-01
Please review the document and send your comments to the list by December
18, 2020.
Note the the GitHub repository for
(Even though this sub-thread has no effect on the draft, I
couldn't resist:-)
On 03/12/2020 23:53, Rob Sayre wrote:
The enterprise perspective is not usually considered or understood at IETF
I think that perspective is both considered and understood, but not usually
accommodated.
I think yo
On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 4:54 PM Stephen Farrell
wrote:
>
> There are of course a set of networks that have difficulty
> in managing and updating the systems that make up their
> networks.
>
That's true, but attackers run on their own schedule.
I don't think IETF documents should include caveats
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 : TLS Ticket Requests
Authors : Tommy Pauly
David Schinazi
Thanks for the feedback, Dale! We addressed your comments and updated the
draft. The diff is available here:
https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?difftype=--hwdiff&url2=draft-ietf-tls-ticketrequests-07.txt
Best,
Chris
On Fri, Nov 27, 2020, at 7:54 PM, Dale Worley via Datatracker wrote:
> Reviewer
Deborah
Thanks so much for your informative and positive message.
I have not followed the OPs area too much, but will make an effort to do so
now. Any specific drafts you might suggest, I will review. In particular,
I am interested in what specific IPv6 document from the OPs area you refer
Hi,
What is the definition of “enterprise”?
Thanks,
Rob
On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 7:48 PM Ackermann, Michael
wrote:
> Deborah
>
> Thanks so much for your informative and positive message.
>
> I have not followed the OPs area too much, but will make an effort to do
> so now. Any specific drafts
24 matches
Mail list logo
