Hi Ilari,
thanks for your feedback. A few remarks below.
Am 05.01.2024 um 16:59 schrieb Ilari Liusvaara:
On Fri, Jan 05, 2024 at 03:11:37PM +, Fries, Steffen wrote:
Hi David,
In addition to what Hannes stated, the alternative in Appendix B was
the result of further thoughts on potential
Hi Scott,
thanks for your feedback. Introducing PQC algorithms in the design for
this proposal has not been discussed in TSVWG design team and has
therefore not been a requirement for me. (Maybe my co-authors see this
differently.)
I will bring this topic up in the next design team call. In any
On Mon, Jan 08, 2024 at 11:52:53AM +0100, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>
> Am 05.01.2024 um 16:59 schrieb Ilari Liusvaara:
>
> Your design proposal below is nice but the number of messages make it
> less attractive (even though the use of this mechanism is likely for
> devices where performance and b
WARC records have 'types' ('WARC-Type' header field), and the two
relevant ones here are 'request' and 'response'. The names come from
HTTP of course, but we'd use them analogously for client-to-server and
server-to-client TLS records, respectively.
This is outside the scope of TLSWG, but there's not really a clean mapping
from client->server and server->client packets to requests and responses,
so I would suggest you introduce types that are clearer..
-Ekr
On Mon, Jan 8, 2024 at 9:50 AM JustAnotherArchivist <
justanotherarchiv...@riseup.ne
