Adam Roach has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-tls-ecdhe-psk-aead-04: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-ecdhe-psk-aead/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I agree with EKR's discuss -- specifying semantics for these ciphersuites with TLS 1.0 and 1.1 is a material change, and the proposed mechanism (in which servers are encouraged to infer 1.2 support even in the absence of explicit indication) is a bit baffling. Given the scope this document covers, I recommend adding "1.2" to the title of the document. (e.g.: "ECDHE_PSK with AES-GCM and AES-CCM Cipher Suites for Transport Layer Security Version 1.2 (TLS 1.2)") _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
