Issues
--
* tlswg/tls13-spec (+0/-1/💬2)
1 issues received 2 new comments:
- #1359 Should x25519 be made MTI? (2 by ekr, legna37)
https://github.com/tlswg/tls13-spec/issues/1359
1 issues closed:
- Should x25519 be made MTI? https://github.com/tlswg/tls13-spec/issues/1359
Pull
Internet-Draft draft-ietf-tls-esni-22.txt is now available. It is a work item
of the Transport Layer Security (TLS) WG of the IETF.
Title: TLS Encrypted Client Hello
Authors: Eric Rescorla
Kazuho Oku
Nick Sullivan
Christopher A. Wood
Name:draft-ie
Thx Adrian for the reaction.
> There is a considerable difference between loading large amounts of data for
> a single site, which is a decision that is controllable by a site, and adding
> a fixed amount of latency to _all_ connections to all sites to defend against
> a computer that does not
On Wed, Sep 11, 2024 at 12:41 AM John Mattsson wrote:
> "To avoid downgrade attacks, the client MUST continue to send its full
> preferences in the supported_groups extension."
>
>
>
> I don't think sending full preferences is a requirement in RFC 8446. As
> far as I can see there is no normative
