I believe this fix is correct, but I think it’s editorial instead of technical
and can be marked as HFDU because implementers shouldn’t really be too confused
by this.
spt
> On Nov 11, 2024, at 11:30, RFC Errata System
> wrote:
>
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC9525,
in Secure Syslog".
>
> --
> You may review the report below and at:
> https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid8135
>
> --
> Type: Editorial
> Reported by: Sean Turner
>
> Section: Abstract
>
> Original Text
&g
cations (UTA) WG of the
> IETF.
>
> Title: Updates to the Cipher Suites in Secure Syslog
> Authors: Chris Lonvick
>Sean Turner
>Joe Salowey
> Name:draft-ietf-uta-ciphersuites-in-sec-syslog-07.txt
> Pages: 8
> Dates: 2024-07-24
&
> On Apr 27, 2024, at 22:46, Mahesh Jethanandani via Datatracker
> wrote:
>
> Mahesh Jethanandani has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-uta-ciphersuites-in-sec-syslog-05: Discuss
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses i
> On Apr 22, 2024, at 07:37, Éric Vyncke via Datatracker
> wrote:
>
> Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-uta-ciphersuites-in-sec-syslog-05: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in
> On Apr 26, 2024, at 19:33, Roman Danyliw via Datatracker
> wrote:
>
> Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-uta-ciphersuites-in-sec-syslog-05: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included
> On Feb 20, 2024, at 20:03, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
> Signed PGP part
>
>
> On 20/02/2024 17:40, Andrea Vesco wrote:
>> Hi Stephen, before contacting UTA WG we have shared the I-D with TLS WG
>> chairs, and they explained that typically defining a new credential type
>> is not something th
Yep - thanks Peter. Need this in another SDO.
spt
> On Nov 9, 2023, at 08:47, Valery Smyslov wrote:
>
> Hi Peter,
>
> thank you so much for your work on this RFC and on 9325 too!
> And also thanks to your co-authors and to those who participated
> in reviews and discussions!
>
> Regards,
> Va
> On Jan 31, 2023, at 09:36, Sean Turner wrote:
>
> The only open question I think we have was whether we have the requirements
> (and updates) for TLS 1.2 & 1.3 in s4 and DTLS 1.2 and DTLS 1.3 in s5. At
> this point (and mostly based on Thomas’ pointer to RFC 9525),
(
t;>> From:
>>> Date: Sun, Sep 11, 2022 at 5:57 PM
>>> Subject: [Uta] I-D Action:
>>> draft-ietf-uta-ciphersuites-in-sec-syslog-02.txt
>>> To:
>>> Cc:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> A New Internet-Draft is availa
yslog-02.txt
> To:
> Cc:
>
>
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directories.
> This draft is a work item of the Using TLS in Applications WG of the IETF.
>
> Title : Updates to the Cipher
Likewise on draft-ietf-uta-ciphersuites-in-sec-syslog, it seems like we are
getting enough of what we need out of email to not warrant a session for it.
Cheers,
spt
> On Sep 21, 2022, at 16:12, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>
> On 9/21/22 8:12 AM, Valery Smyslov wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> the chairs are
As author, I obviously support its adoption and will work with the WG to revise
the I-D in a timely manner based on input received.
spt
> On Apr 22, 2022, at 08:59, Valery Smyslov wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> recent discussion on the ML showed some interest of the WG in adoption of
> draft-ciphersuite
Thought I’d bump this. Any thoughts?
spt
> On Apr 3, 2022, at 22:17, Sean Turner wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> At the SECDISPATCH session during IETF 113, Joe presented
> draft-ciphersuites-in-sec-syslog [0][1]. The I-D updates the cipher suites
> for syslog with (D)TLS; motiva
Hi!
At the SECDISPATCH session during IETF 113, Joe presented
draft-ciphersuites-in-sec-syslog [0][1]. The I-D updates the cipher suites for
syslog with (D)TLS; motivations can be found in the I-D. The outcome of the
SECDISPATCH discussion was to take it to UTA [3]. So, we are hoping that the
> On Dec 9, 2021, at 16:11, Julien ÉLIE wrote:
>
> Note that I-D.ietf-tls-dtls13 is RFC 9147 (though still in AUTH48).
On the DTLS1.3 I-D’s status: there were two late stage changes 1) the narrow
epoch for long-lived connections, and 2) the ambiguous message_hash
construction. The WG has sett
Apologies, I maybe should have sent this earlier, but Rich Salz’s secdir
reminded me to forward this IETF LC due to the application-focused nature of
this I-D.
Cheers,
spt
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: The IESG
> Subject: Last Call: (Guidance
> for External PSK Usage in TLS) to Infor
I support adoption and will review the draft.
> On Apr 27, 2020, at 11:32, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>
> Specific TLS 1.3 gotcha: 0-RTT – what should we say here?
At a minimum, I think we need this draft to address the point above.
spt
___
Uta mailing
-hat
John,
There is already a certificate compression mechanism defined in
draft-ietf-tls-certificate-compression, which is currently in the RFC editor’s
queue. How do these documents relate to that one?
spt
> On Apr 8, 2020, at 09:29, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
>
> Thanks for the info, John.
Mostly just nits/style comments assuming that this moves as fast as
ID.tls-oldversions-deprectate.
0) Add updates header “Updates: RFC8314”
1) Title
TLS is now in the RFC editor’s abbreviations list so the title can now be:
Use of TLS for Email Submission and Access
1) Introduction
r/reco
Note that 4949 has already been called out in a downref when you requested the
IETF LC for the OAuth v2 draft ;)
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg09796.html
spt
On Apr 20, 2015, at 19:48, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
> Top quoting: thanks all - let's do that. I'll
I read version -02 and think it’s a fine document. One nit s/Certificate
Authority/Certification Authority in s1 but you can fix that if anything else
comes up.
spt
On Mar 23, 2015, at 13:49, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Draf
On Oct 03, 2014, at 09:42, Viktor Dukhovni wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 02, 2014 at 05:20:56PM -0400, Sean Turner wrote:
>
>> The deployment recommendations address the operators of application
>> layer services that are most commonly used on the Internet, including
>> but n
Is this what you were looking for:
Hi authors,
I’ve recently read the -04 version of the draft and have a couple of couple and
some
questions comments. I guess I’d categorize the comments as editorial but this
draft is
about explaining things to non-sec folks I hope you’ll entertain them:
0)
Whoops .. t...@ietf.org
spt
On Jul 30, 2014, at 10:26, Sean Turner wrote:
> FYI - the TLS WG has adopted Andrei’s draft as a WG item. Please direct
> discussion about it to t...@ietf.org.
>
> spt
>
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>> From: internet-dra...@ietf
FYI - the TLS WG has adopted Andrei’s draft as a WG item. Please direct
discussion about it to t...@ietf.org.
spt
Begin forwarded message:
> From: internet-dra...@ietf.org
> Subject: I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-prohibiting-rc4-00.txt
> Date: July 22, 2014 at 09:34:02 EDT
> To: i-d-annou...@ietf
26 matches
Mail list logo
