I don't quite understand what it is you're asking for here. As I understand it, you think that the changes we made in PR#185 may have been unnecessary and that it would be good to have more analysis of that. Is that roughly correct? Do you think there is a problem with the current key schedule?
-Ekr On Sat, Feb 17, 2024 at 8:14 AM Muhammad Usama Sardar < muhammad_usama.sar...@tu-dresden.de> wrote: > Hi Eric, > > Just as a reminder, I did not yet have any answer to the > questions/concerns posed in [1]. Do you happen to have any strong > opinion on this or else do you want me to create an issue for this? > > Thanks, > > Usama > > [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/ZGmyHwTYh2iPwPrirj_rkSTYhDo/ > > On 17.02.24 16:40, Eric Rescorla wrote: > > Hi folks, > > > > I went through the open issues on draft-ietf-tls-rfc8446bis this > > morning and addressed a few. There are two remaining open > > issues [0] > > > > #1338 client_early_traffic_secret and alert > > #1339 illegal_parameter vs protocol_version propose-close > > > > I intend to close both of these unchanged on 2/29 and publish > > a ready-for-pubreq version. If you object to these resolutions, > > please comment on the list or on the issue. > > > > -Ekr > > > > > > [0] And an editorial PR. > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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
