On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 3:40 PM, Stephen Farrell <stephen.farr...@cs.tcd.ie> wrote: > > > On 25/10/17 23:37, Richard Barnes wrote: >> Sorry, what? The current draft proposes an extension, literally the >> opposite of a standard, supported feature. It's explicitly optional. > > Optional is not the opposite of standard. > > See the intended status below. > >> I don't really have a dog in this fight, but let's please be accurate. > > Accuracy level is just fine I think.
So, to be completely clear, no one is arguing that Nick's three options (quoted below) are wrong or do not work. The objection is that the IETF should not be publishing a RFC that documents them, is that right? Nick Sullivan wrote: > 1) use TLS 1.2 with RSA -> one single key > 2) use TLS 1.3 with DH key derived from seed -> one single key (similar to > draft-green) > 3) use any version of TLS and export the session keys -> corpus of keys equal > to number of connections Thanks, Peter _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
