Hi Yaron,
[snipped]
> Do you want to say anything about EdDSA and the kerfuffle going on in
cfrg@ mailing list right now? No is a
> good, and probably sane, answer.
>
> No. We discussed it briefly and although we added 25519 for the ECDH key
exchange, we are not
Hi Yaron,
[snipped]
> Do you want to say anything about EdDSA and the kerfuffle going on in
> cfrg@ mailing list right now? No is a
> good, and probably sane, answer.
>
> No. We discussed it briefly and although we added 25519 for the ECDH key
> exchange, we are not
> recommending (or eve
Your answers all make sense. I think 6125bis is more appropriate than 6125,
but that would probably mainly depend on publication schedule.
>You and Peter know best.
Do you mind if I show that to my wife? :)
___
Uta mailing list
Uta@ietf.org
http
Hi Rich,
Thanks for re-reading the draft. Below are some answers to your questions -
note that we haven't discussed them as a team and my co-authors may well
disagree.
Best,
Yaron
On 2/3/22, 21:47, "Salz, Rich" wrote:
I re-read the document. It's very nice. A few nits, I think
I re-read the document. It's very nice. A few nits, I think all are editorial
and can be fixed later. I support moving this doc forward.
I note that you say "use encrypted client hello when it's ready" Do you want
to make the same recommendation for DTLS 1.3?
Do you want to say anything abo
Here's the post-WGLC version of the BCP. Thanks to everybody who reviewed the
draft and those who participated in the discussion leading to this version.
Quite a few changes from -04:
- More clarity and guidance on session resumption.
- Clarity on TLS 1.2 renegotiation.
- Wo
