Hi folks,
I went through the open issues on draft-ietf-tls-rfc8446bis this
morning and addressed a few. There are two remaining open
issues [0]
#1338 client_early_traffic_secret and alert
#1339 illegal_parameter vs protocol_version propose-close
I intend to close both of these unchanged on 2/29
Hi Eric,
Just as a reminder, I did not yet have any answer to the
questions/concerns posed in [1]. Do you happen to have any strong
opinion on this or else do you want me to create an issue for this?
Thanks,
Usama
[1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/ZGmyHwTYh2iPwPrirj_rkSTYhDo/
O
I don't quite understand what it is you're asking for here.
As I understand it, you think that the changes we made in PR#185 may have
been unnecessary
and that it would be good to have more analysis of that. Is that roughly
correct? Do you think
there is a problem with the current key schedule?
-
On Wed, Feb 7, 2024 at 2:06 PM Elardus Erasmus wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I figured it would be better to send an email, rather than proposing and
> discussing this on a PR (proposed edits/diffs are at the bottom of this
> email).
>
> We have two suggestions regarding the specification text (
> https://dat
Hi folks,
I wanted to provide an update on draft-ietf-tls-esni. I went through
all existing PRs and issues as well as some of the recent list
discussion. This message provides a summary of the status:
PRs
* 594: A first proposal to fix the no-sni section [Arnaud Taddei]
I think this is fine and
On 17/02/2024 18:56, Eric Rescorla wrote:
I should be able to spin a WGLC-ready version of ECH before the
draft deadline.
Good stuff, thanks. I'll plan to review the proposed
changes with a strong bias for not asking for more:-)
Cheers,
S.
OpenPGP_0xE4D8E9F997A833DD.asc
Description: OpenPG
On Sat, Feb 17, 2024 at 11:09 AM Stephen Farrell
wrote:
>
>
> On 17/02/2024 18:56, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> > I should be able to spin a WGLC-ready version of ECH before the
> > draft deadline.
>
> Good stuff, thanks. I'll plan to review the proposed
> changes with a strong bias for not asking for
On Sat, Feb 17, 2024 at 10:57 AM Eric Rescorla wrote:
> ISSUES
> * 866: Server retry flow, section 7.1 [Robert Sayre]
> I'm not seeing support for a change here, so I propose to
> close unless someone provides a PR that receives some
> support.
>
I agree, I'm in the rough on this one. Howe
Based on the github version.
Comments are in order of spotting, not seriousness. I understand
Martin Thompson has a clever way to format these emails I have tried
to follow but with little success. This is almost all editorial nits.
# Introduction
I would reorder the 3 and 4th paragraphs, with a
On 17.02.24 17:31, Eric Rescorla wrote:
As I understand it, you think that the changes we made in PR#185 may
have been unnecessary
and that it would be good to have more analysis of that. Is that
roughly correct?
Yes, except that the relevant PR is #875. Since there is silence for
last 2 mon
Issues
--
* tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni (+2/-2/💬10)
2 issues created:
- Use Session ID and/or PSK in Client Hello to transfer enctypred SNI (by
0x391F)
https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/issues/605
- Memory for ECH rejection (by ekr)
https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tl
11 matches
Mail list logo
