On Mon, 7 Nov 2022, Eric Rescorla wrote:
Subject: Re: [TLS] Question regarding RFC 8446
Hi David,
This question seems a bit out of scope for TLS, which is kind of indifferent to
the transport interaction.
Perhaps it might make sense to be in UTA, though unfortunately, RFC 7525-bis is
in the
Hi Paul,
I'm actually not sure this is a good idea, and not because we are at the RFC
Editor.
TLS has intentionally kept this aspect out of scope basically forever. The
following text appears in TLS 1.0 (Jan. 1999) and still appears unchanged in
TLS 1.3:
"No part of this standard should be ta
Hi Paul, all,
I agree with Yaron: this looks like a (D)TLS profiling aspect that
should be defined by the HL7 protocol.
Cheers, t
On 08/11/2022, 10:36, "Uta" wrote:
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> I'm actually not sure this is a good idea, and not because we are at
> the RFC Editor.
>
> TLS has intentionally
Changed milestone "Submit "Deprecating MD5 and SHA-1 signature hashes in TLS
1.2" to the IESG", resolved as "Done".
Changed milestone "Submit "Delegated Credentials for TLS" to the IESG",
resolved as "Done".
Changed milestone "Submit "TLS Ticket Requests" to the IESG", resolved as
"Done".
Change
On 11/8/22 3:50 AM, Thomas Fossati wrote:
Hi Paul, all,
I agree with Yaron: this looks like a (D)TLS profiling aspect that
should be defined by the HL7 protocol.
+1 here as well.
Peter
___
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/
