Hi Rich,
I am confused by your response.
For those who missed CURDLE, could you please briefly explain why we
don't need signature context in non-TLS areas.
And even if this is the case, the current thread is about TLS! So why
are we now saying that contexts are not needed even for TLS?
Thanks,
Yaron
On 20/11/16 13:21, Salz, Rich wrote:
In CURDLE this week, we had consensus (to be confirmed on the list, of course)
that
Signature contexts were created in the TLS arena, we all thought we
needed them in other areas, and we don't, therefore all CURDLE documents for
those other areas will specify a zero-length context.
FWIW.
I agree with Yoav's message, for the reasons he states.
--
Senior Architect, Akamai Technologies
Member, OpenSSL Dev Team
IM: richs...@jabber.at Twitter: RichSalz
-----Original Message-----
From: Sean Turner [mailto:s...@sn3rd.com]
Sent: Friday, November 18, 2016 6:56 PM
To: <tls@ietf.org>
Subject: [TLS] WGLC for draft-ietf-tls-rfc4492bis
All,
This is a working group last call for the “4492bis to Standards Track" draft
available @ http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-rfc4492bis/. Please
review the document and send your comments to the list by 9 December
2016.
Note that we are particularly interesting in the issue Yoav raises in the
following message:
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/8Ec7jQqLr_3FrvQfuclllfozKZk
Thanks,
J&S
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
