Acknowledged. This will be in draft-12.
On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 5:27 PM, Joseph Salowey <j...@salowey.net> wrote: > No objection, it looks good. I don't see any objections on the list so I > say merge it. > > On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com> wrote: > >> It sounds like we have general consensus here. Does anyone object to my >> merging >> this PR? >> >> -Ekr >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 10:34 AM, Ilari Liusvaara < >> ilariliusva...@welho.com> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 05:37:20PM +0000, David Benjamin wrote: >>> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 8:22 PM Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > I would probably characterize it less as suites vs orthogonality, but >>> as >>> > wanting to keep divisions in meaningful and universal places and not >>> > splitting up tightly-coupled decisions. The flexibility from >>> orthogonality >>> > can be handy, but going too far---as I believe TLS 1.2 did with >>> signature, >>> > prehash, and curve---complicates everything. Imagine if negotiating >>> > AES_128_GCM required separately negotiating block cipher AES-128, mode >>> CTR, >>> > and MAC GHASH. >>> >>> It isn't even orthogonal, it is coupled, which is way worse and quite >>> difficult to implement correctly. >>> >>> I now consider the way TLS 1.3 draft / RFC4492bis draft currently does >>> EdDSA negotiation a bad idea (what is proposed here is vast improvement). >>> >>> >>> -Ilari >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> TLS mailing list >> TLS@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls >> >> >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
