Issues
--
* tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni (+0/-1/💬0)
1 issues closed:
- Mention that the server identity may be revealed by ServerHellp https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/issues/612
Pull requests
-
* tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni (+2/-2/💬4)
2 pull requests submitted:
EKR:
I agree with most of your points about the process, but I want to respond to
this paragraph in particular.
> Similarly here, if the WG feels that a change is sufficiently large to
> require formal analysis then the WG -- and more specifically those who
> want the work to move forward -- nee
On Sun, 2 Jun 2024, 19:17 Russ Housley, wrote:
> EKR:
>
> I agree with most of your points about the process, but I want to respond
> to this paragraph in particular.
>
> Similarly here, if the WG feels that a change is sufficiently large to
> require formal analysis then the WG -- and more speci
Information about the popularity of specific cryptosystems plays a role
in decisions of what to standardize and deploy. I've been pointed to a
surprising statement (quoted below) regarding popularity of curves, in
particular in TLS handshakes. The statement is from one of the current
TLS co-chairs,
I expect X25519 to be the most commonly *selected *(as opposed to supported)
TLS key exchange on the open Internet, due to browsers preferring it for its
marginal performance benefit. This is not a popularity contest though and
that's not the most useful metric for choosing the ECC component of
On Sun, Jun 2, 2024 at 10:17 AM Russ Housley wrote:
> EKR:
>
> I agree with most of your points about the process, but I want to respond
> to this paragraph in particular.
>
> Similarly here, if the WG feels that a change is sufficiently large to
> require formal analysis then the WG -- and more
