On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 at 10:45, tirumal reddy wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> The document https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-reddy-uta-pqc-app/
> discusses Quantum-Ready usage profiles for TLS-based Applications to defend
> against passive and on-path attacks employing CRQCs.
>
> Comments and Suggestio
Reviewer: Loganaden Velvindron
Review result: Ready
The document is ready and has no major issues.
___
Uta mailing list
Uta@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
On Sun, Mar 14, 2021 at 6:48 PM Valery Smyslov wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> this message starts 2 weeks formal adoption call for draft-rsalz-use-san.
>
> The call will end on Sunday 28 March.
>
>
I support adoption of the draft and will provide feedback.
>
> The draft has already received some suppor
On Fri, May 15, 2020 at 11:54 AM Valery Smyslov wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> during the last virtual interim meeting the
> draft-tschofenig-uta-tls13-profile-04
> was discussed. The authors of the draft asked for its adoption by the WG and
> a
> quick poll during the meeting indicated that participants wer
On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 8:29 PM Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
>
> > On Sep 11, 2019, at 2:47 AM, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
> >
> >Title : Use of TLS for Email Submission and Access
> >Authors : Loganaden Velvindron
> >
Introduction, 3rd paragraph:
"TLS 1.3 has been re-designed and several previously defined
extensions are not applicable to the new version of TLS/DTLS anymore"
I think that this could be improved a bit, as it gives the impression that
there was a previous version of TLS 1.3. Something like "T
I've uploaded it here:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lvelvindron-tls-for-email-02.
I'm looking forward to more feedback.
On Mon, Oct 15, 2018 at 5:12 PM Loganaden Velvindron
wrote:
>
> Thank you Sean. I will update the document and upload it.
>
> On Sat, Oct 6, 2018
3 [RFC8446]
>
> 6) References
>
> Since you’re downgrading 1.1 should we move it to an informative reference?
>
> Again to avoid ID-nits I guess add 1.1 as an informative and TLS 1.2 and 1.3
> as normative?
>
> 7) Sec Cons
>
> I’d probably add something like see [
On Fri, Sep 21, 2018 at 3:12 PM Loganaden Velvindron
wrote:
>
> Dear UTA folks,
>
> Please find the link here
> (https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-lvelvindron-tls-for-email-00.txt) for
> the draft for Switching the minimum requirement for TLS in mail from
> TLS 1.1 to TLS 1.2
Dear UTA folks,
Please find the link here
(https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-lvelvindron-tls-for-email-00.txt) for
the draft for Switching the minimum requirement for TLS in mail from
TLS 1.1 to TLS 1.2. This is inline with what is happening here:
https://github.com/tlswg/oldversions-deprecate/blob/m
10 matches
Mail list logo
