Valery Smyslov writes:
>I would add that if a (D)TLS profile for HL7 is written, UTA can be a natural
>home for this draft.
This seems to be like using an S-300 to take out a drone, to update the
rabbits and cruise missiles analogy. The OP described the behaviour of a
broken TLS implementation
Hi David, all,
I would add that if a (D)TLS profile for HL7 is written,
UTA can be a natural home for this draft.
Regards,
Valery.
From: TLS On Behalf Of Thomas Fossati
Sent: Tuesday, November 8, 2022 1:50 PM
To: Yaron Sheffer ; Paul Wouters ;
Eric Rescorla
Cc: David Barr ; uta@ietf
On 11/8/22 3:50 AM, Thomas Fossati wrote:
Hi Paul, all,
I agree with Yaron: this looks like a (D)TLS profiling aspect that
should be defined by the HL7 protocol.
+1 here as well.
Peter
___
Uta mailing list
Uta@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/
Hi Paul, all,
I agree with Yaron: this looks like a (D)TLS profiling aspect that
should be defined by the HL7 protocol.
Cheers, t
On 08/11/2022, 10:36, "Uta" wrote:
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> I'm actually not sure this is a good idea, and not because we are at
> the RFC Editor.
>
> TLS has intentionally
Hi Paul,
I'm actually not sure this is a good idea, and not because we are at the RFC
Editor.
TLS has intentionally kept this aspect out of scope basically forever. The
following text appears in TLS 1.0 (Jan. 1999) and still appears unchanged in
TLS 1.3:
"No part of this standard should be ta
On Mon, 7 Nov 2022, Eric Rescorla wrote:
Subject: Re: [TLS] Question regarding RFC 8446
Hi David,
This question seems a bit out of scope for TLS, which is kind of indifferent to
the transport interaction.
Perhaps it might make sense to be in UTA, though unfortunately, RFC 7525-bis is
in the
Hi David,
This question seems a bit out of scope for TLS, which is kind of
indifferent to the transport interaction.
Perhaps it might make sense to be in UTA, though unfortunately, RFC
7525-bis is in the editor queue now...
-Ekr
On Mon, Nov 7, 2022 at 1:37 AM David Barr wrote:
> How can I ma
