Hiya,

On 05/04/2024 12:54, Achim Kraus wrote:
Hi,

On that basis, I'd consider this a bad idea that
ought not be pursued, and certainly not by the TLS
WG.

for me this sounds more like an argument for a

"recommended (for general use-cases) n".

I'd go further - ISTM an argument for a re-design
that just doesn't have the privacy problem. (And
maybe come back to the TLS WG after that's done.)

Or does the TLS group focus on Web only and I missed that?

My mail made no reference to the web. The problem,
if it exists, would apply to all uses of TLS that
enabled this mechanism.

Cheers,
S.


best regards
Achim

Attachment: OpenPGP_0xE4D8E9F997A833DD.asc
Description: OpenPGP public key

Attachment: OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls

Reply via email to