Yes, assuming that people agree with my plan above, I will do so. On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 7:06 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It seems like the minimum thing TLS 1.3 can do is observe that these > extensions exist and that they can't be used with TLS 1.3 (yet). > > On 10 March 2017 at 11:43, Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com> wrote: > > As noted in https://github.com/tlswg/tls13-spec/issues/722, the new > fancy > > TLS 1.3 Certificate structure doesn't map well to the various non-X.509 > > cert structures we have defined, specifically: > > > > - Raw Public Keys > > - Cached Info > > - OpenPGP > > > > Probably mapping each of these to 1.3 is relatively straightforward > > (Raw public keys == a list with one key, Cached info == the hash of > > each cert + its extensions, and so on), but I tend to think that given > the > > modest/specialized deployment of these extensions, it's better to do a > > set of small bis RFCs to define each of these, rather than add a bunch > > of clutter to TLS 1.3 proper. > > > > Does anyone object to this? Volunteers. > > > > -Ekr > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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
