[TLS] Re: Feedback on draft-bmw-tls-pake13-01.txt

> On Mar 18, 2025, at 1:44 AM, Rob Sayre wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 10:02 AM Rob Sayre > wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 9:38 AM Eric Rescorla > > wrote: >>> >>> As above, I don't see what this has to do with PAKEs at all. If you have a

[TLS] Feedback on draft-bmw-tls-pake13-01.txt

together. We’ve filed a GitHub issue here tracking our intent to change this: https://github.com/chris-wood/draft-bmw-tls-pake13/issues/25. Thanks, Laura Bauman l_bau...@apple.com___ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le

[TLS] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-bmw-tls-pake13-02.txt

ication for draft-bmw-tls-pake13-02.txt > Date: July 7, 2025 at 4:17:24 PM PDT > To: "Christopher A. Wood" , Christopher Wood > , David Benjamin , Laura Bauman > , Samir Menon > > A new version of Internet-Draft draft-bmw-tls-pake13-02.txt has been > successf

[TLS] Re: Review of draft-bmw-tls-pake13-02.txt

Thank you for the feedback! I’ve responded inline below. > On Jul 17, 2025, at 8:23 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > Overall, this draft seems clear and useful. I have concerns > about whether PAKEs will really take off this time, but based on the > discussion at the last meeting and the various sta

[TLS] Re: WG Adoption Call for A PAKE Extension for TLS 1.3

I support adoption. Apple has also implemented a prior version of the draft that is interoperable with BoringSSL’s version. > On Jul 24, 2025, at 9:01 AM, Sean Turner wrote: > > At IETF 122 & 123 we discussed draft-bmw-tls-pake13 [0]. The sense of room @ > both sessions was that there was supp