This draft provides guidelines for TLS proxy implementations; given current
activities using TLS with proxying I believe this document is useful for the
community and implementors. I support its adoption.
Warm regards, Nancy
On 7/22/20, 6:31 PM, "OPSEC on behalf of Jen Linkova" wrote:
O
The document is not imposing any standards but rather provide guidelines for
those implementing TLS proxies; given that proxies will continue to exist I'm
not sure why there is a belief that the IETF should ignore this.
Warm regards, Nancy
On 7/27/20, 5:20 AM, "OPSEC on behalf of Blumenthal,
Hi Tom,
Yes apologies as the latest version included comment responses from Kathleen
and Jason, but I omitted yourswhich is coming soon.
Apologies for that omission, look for -02 coming soon
Nancy
On 7/28/20, 9:08 AM, "TLS on behalf of tom petch" wrote:
From: OPSEC on behalf
Hi Jen,
Yes, yesand again apologies for missing Tom's comments. For some reason we
(the authors) did not see his email come thru, but I did cover Kathleen's and
Jason's comments (and did respond to them when their comments came in).
Will try to do it in the next day or so
Best, Nancy
Hi Nick,
Thanks for reviewing the doc, please see further responses/comments below:
On 8/17/20, 8:40 AM, "TLS on behalf of Nick Lamb" wrote:
I am not very familiar with IETF working group practices, however it
strikes me as surely unusual to have a document enter Last Call
(supposed
Hi Nick and EKR,
Please see below:
On 8/20/20, 4:40 PM, "Nick Lamb" wrote:
On Thu, 20 Aug 2020 09:58:58 -0400
Roelof DuToit wrote:
> As co-author I am not a proponent of passive TLS inspection - not
> least because of the ossification implications. It cannot be labeled
Hi Stephen,
Adding to Flemming’s comment, finding “exact quotes” will be difficult as
their intent is really not to break things but rather want to ensure that
inspection and oversight is available to affect guards/protections within an
(enterprise/data center) infrastructure. That said, PCI
Hi Stephen,
Please see below:
On 11/7/17, 4:08 PM, "Stephen Farrell" wrote:
Hiya,
On 07/11/17 23:53, Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing) wrote:
> Hi Stephen, Adding to Flemming’s comment, finding “exact quotes”
> will be difficult
I'm sorry bu
, "Stephen Farrell" wrote:
Hiya,
On 08/11/17 00:23, Nancy Cam-Winget (ncamwing) wrote:
> Hi Stephen,
> Please see below:
>
> On 11/7/17, 4:08 PM, "Stephen Farrell" wrote:
>
>
> Hiya,
>
All,
A couple IoT consortiums are trying to embrace the improvements made to TLS 1.3
and as they define their new security constructs would like to adopt the latest
protocols, in this case TLS 1.3. To that extent, they have a strong need for
mutual authentication, but integrity only (no confid
Hi Eric,
Thanks for the prompt feedback! Please see further comments/questions below:
From: Eric Rescorla
Date: Monday, August 20, 2018 at 13:58
To: "ncamw...@cisco.com"
Cc: "tls@ietf.org"
Subject: Re: [TLS] integrity only ciphersuites
On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 1:48
Hi Eric,
In response to your 2 questions below:
1. Should they be marked "Recommended" in the registry?
[NCW] No, these cipher suites should not be “Recommended” in the registry.
1. Should the TLS WG spend time reviewing these documents?
[NCW] I am not sure what you mean (intent-wise) by
g 20, 2018 at 7:46 PM Geoffrey Keating
mailto:geo...@geoffk.org>> wrote:
"Nancy Cam-Winget \(ncamwing\)"
mailto:40cisco@dmarc.ietf.org>>
writes:
> In following the new IANA rules, we have posted the draft
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-camwinget-tls-ts13-mac
Hi,
Thanks to all the feedback provided, we have updated the
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-camwinget-tls-use-cases-04
draft. At this point, we believe the draft is stable and would like to request
its publication as an informational draft.
Warm regards,
Nancy
_
All,
@IETF99, awareness was raised to some of the security WGs (thanks Kathleen ☺)
that TLS 1.3 will obscure visibility currently afforded in TLS 1.2 and asked
what the implications would be for the security solutions today.
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-camwinget-tls-use-cases-00 is an in
I also support adoption as this can help 3GPP
From: Loganaden Velvindron
Date: Sunday, July 20, 2025 at 9:54 PM
To: Simon Josefsson
Cc: TLS List
Subject: [TLS] Re: Second WG Adoption Call for Use of SLH-DSA in TLS 1.3
I also support adoption of the draft. If there is a use case for 3gpp,
I'm ok
16 matches
Mail list logo
