The current triage panel is not anonymous, and the feedback they gave on
RFC8773bis included the complete input from all current members.
Post it. All of it. To the WG mailing list.
___
TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to
Hi! Loganaden submitted a PR to add x25519 as an MTI in TLS 1.3 that addresses
an Issue submitted by Stephen; links to both follow:
Issue: https://github.com/tlswg/tls13-spec/issues/1359
PR: https://github.com/tlswg/tls13-spec/pull/1360
As this has been suggested post WGLC, we need to ensure we h
All of it was posted to the list in May:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/vK2N0vr83W6YlBQMIaVr9TeHzu4/
On Mon, Aug 26, 2024, 9:22 AM Salz, Rich wrote:
> The current triage panel is not anonymous, and the feedback they gave
> on RFC8773bis included the complete input from all current me
I support *not* making Curve 25519 MTI in TLS 1.3.
Cheers,
Andrei
-Original Message-
From: Sean Turner
Sent: Monday, August 26, 2024 6:23 AM
To: TLS List
Subject: [EXTERNAL] [TLS]Consensus Call: -rfc8446bis PRs #1360
Hi! Loganaden submitted a PR to add x25519 as an MTI in TLS 1.3 that
Please do not merge.
Russ
> On Aug 26, 2024, at 9:23 AM, Sean Turner wrote:
>
> Hi! Loganaden submitted a PR to add x25519 as an MTI in TLS 1.3 that
> addresses an Issue submitted by Stephen; links to both follow:
> Issue: https://github.com/tlswg/tls13-spec/issues/1359
> PR: https://github.co
Andrei Popov writes:
>I support *not* making Curve 25519 MTI in TLS 1.3.
Same here, there's already enough new stuff required by 1.3 without adding even
more.
Peter.
___
TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf
Let's try to disentangle two questions:
Unfortunately, the Chairs keep entangling the questions. Look at the message
at the start of this thread, which clearly gives the panel summary as
justification.
Rather, it turns on whether you think that this is a significant enough change
with unclear
➢ All of it was posted to the list in May:
➢ https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/vK2N0vr83W6YlBQMIaVr9TeHzu4/
Quoting that message: “Here is a summary across all participants:” It is not
the messages and discussion.
Further, that summary is inconsistent and hard to follow:
*Does the
I am also opposed to the merge. 8446bis changes are editorial and
clarifications, not semantic ones.
___
TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org
To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
My feelings exactly match Rich's here.
On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 10:15 AM Salz, Rich wrote:
> I am also opposed to the merge. 8446bis changes are editorial and
> clarifications, not semantic ones.
>
>
> ___
> TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org
> To unsubsc
I also support *not* making Curve 25519 MTI.
On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 10:18 AM Richard Barnes wrote:
> My feelings exactly match Rich's here.
>
> On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 10:15 AM Salz, Rich 40akamai@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
>> I am also opposed to the merge. 8446bis changes are editorial an
WRT the draft, yes I think more formal analysis is likely
warranted.
WRT Rich's complaint: I think the chairs would be wise to try
to explicitly address the points he makes and that were raised
at the IETF-120 session. I got the distinct impression that
a bunch of active WG participants were not
I vote for Option 1: Let's see if/how this changes existing proofs before
we move to standards track. From a quick look, it doesn't seem like
implementing this extension should cause anyone trouble, but we might as
well be sure.
Chris P.
On Mon, Aug 26, 2024 at 3:46 PM Stephen Farrell
wrote:
13 matches
Mail list logo
