[TLS] Re: [Pqc] Re: Re: Bytes server -> client

Thanks a lot for writing and sharing! Like reading an alternative version of the NIST report. Very interesting with the measurements of real-world QUIC connections. Cheers, John From: Luke Valenta Date: Friday, 8 November 2024 at 15:09 To: Kampanakis, Panos Cc: Bas Westerbaan , , p...@ietf.o

[TLS] Re: Adoption call for Large Record Sizes for TLS and DTLS

Hi! There is consensus to adopt this draft as a working group item. This might not be the exact form it ends up in, but there is sufficient interest to get the work started. I'll work with the authors to migrate to the official repository and submit an updated draft. spt > On Oct 25, 2024, at

[TLS] Trust Tussle Status

At IETF 121 we spent some time reviewing the status of the Trust Tussle and the way forward. We have set a deadline for submissions of 20 December 2024. Then, we will start a 2-week adoption call on 13 January 2025 for the drafts that we have received. Thanks, spt

[TLS] Re: Bytes server -> client

Hi Panos, Great questions—we’ll aim to share some numbers next week. Regarding the Chrome 10% budget, that’s taken from here (linked from the Cloudflare blog post, but the link didn’t survive the copy/paste to this list): https://dadrian.io/blog/posts/pqc-signatures-2024/

[TLS] Re: DTLS 1.3 replay protection of post-handshake messages?

In today's meeting, we agreed to do 9147-bis, so I think we should put this rule in there even if we also do a separate draft. -Ekr On Thu, Nov 7, 2024 at 11:10 PM John Mattsson wrote: >  > > Hi Eric, Martin, > > > > You suggested writing an RFC require replay protection in DTLS 1.3. I was >