thoughts
together.
Tom Petch
Thanks!
--
SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry on behalf of the OpSec Chairs.
___
OPSEC mailing list
op...@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
___
TLS mailing list
TLS
while before I am ready with more comments on that
other I-D.
Tom Petch
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
From: Jen Linkova
Sent: 28 July 2020 23:14
To: tom petch
On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 2:07 AM tom petch wrote:
>> This email starts the WG Last Call for draft-ietf-opsec-ns-impact ,
>> Impact of TLS 1.3 to Operational Network Security Practices,
>> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/d
, related to oldversions-deprecate but that is a guess from reading
between the lines and that topic is a live one for me so I would appreciate
clarity.
Tom Petch
Best,
Chris, on behalf of the chairs
On Tue, Jul 28, 2020, at 9:29 AM, Christopher Wood wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Draf
From: Benjamin Kaduk
Sent: 11 August 2020 18:06
On Wed, Aug 05, 2020 at 10:30:39AM +, tom petch wrote:
> From: TLS on behalf of Christopher Wood
>
> Sent: 04 August 2020 19:16
>
> The official minutes are now up:
>
>
> https://urldefense.proof
Kathleen
I have some thoughts below on RFC5953 and RFC6353 which I cannot find in
deprecate but thought that I would.
Tom Petch
From: TLS on behalf of tom petch
Sent: 13 August 2020 12:33
To: Benjamin Kaduk
Cc: TLS Chairs; TLS@ietf.org
Subject: Re
y vulnerable to
attack and this document deprecates their use in TLS 1.2 digital
signatures.'
And
/This draft/This document/
Tom Petch
On 14/10/2020 19:40, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Transport Layer Security WG (tls) to
consider the following document: -
ormatively references
DTLS 1.0 (and which is part of a STD - not sure what that does to the
Standard)
And, in several places
/supercede/supersede/
Tom Petch
On 09/11/2020 22:26, The IESG wrote:
The IESG has received a request from the Transport Layer Security WG (tls) to
consider the followin
On 10/11/2020 11:18, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Hiya,
On 10/11/2020 10:21, tom petch wrote:
I am confused about the treatment here of DTLS.
The Abstract seems clear about the proposed action for TLS but then
the second paragraph has
" This document also deprecates Datagram TLS (DTLS) versio
security breaches.
Tom Petch
Thanks,
Rob
On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 7:48 PM Ackermann, Michael
wrote:
Deborah
Thanks so much for your informative and positive message.
I have not followed the OPs area too much, but will make an effort to do
so now. Any specific drafts you might suggest, I w
On 14/12/2020 14:53, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Hi Tom,
On 10/11/2020 11:33, Stephen Farrell wrote:
On 10/11/2020 11:30, tom petch wrote:
Perhaps a second look at the algorithm
to work out why these got missed to get a fix on how many more there may be.
Sure, that's reasonable. (Mig
On 14/12/2020 16:36, tom petch wrote:
On 14/12/2020 14:53, Stephen Farrell wrote:
Hi Tom,
On 10/11/2020 11:33, Stephen Farrell wrote:
On 10/11/2020 11:30, tom petch wrote:
Perhaps a second look at the algorithm
to work out why these got missed to get a fix on how many more there
may be
On 15/12/2020 12:51, tom petch wrote:
On 14/12/2020 16:36, tom petch wrote:
On 14/12/2020 14:53, Stephen Farrell wrote:
On 10/11/2020 11:33, Stephen Farrell wrote:
On 10/11/2020 11:30, tom petch wrote:
Perhaps a second look at the algorithm
to work out why these got missed to get a fix on
uested to allocate an entry to the existing "TLS
"ExtensionType Values" registry, defined in [RFC5246], and
renamed by RFC8447
An extra column is added but I cannot see what value should be placed in
that column for existing entries.
"The tls12_cid ContentType is only a
and
wanted to know which form of header and MAC was appropriate but my
understanding of the later paragraphs became that a zero length CID can
only appear in Hello; but I do think that this needs fixing.
I did track the WG discussion last October and did not see anything very
clear then.
On 12/03/2021 18:32, Thomas Fossati wrote:
Hi Tom, all,
On 12/03/2021, 17:29, "tom petch" wrote:
On 12/03/2021 16:18, Achim Kraus wrote:
Hi Tom, Hannes, Thomas,
"A zero-length value indicates that the server will send with the
client's CID but does not wish the client
On 13/03/2021 18:03, Thomas Fossati wrote:
hi Tom,
On 13/03/2021, 11:54, "tom petch" wrote:
Is your suggestion to remove the parenthetical? I.e.:
OLD
A zero-length value indicates that the server will send with the
client's CID but does not wish the client to in
17 matches
Mail list logo
