I agree that a bis is needed for DTLS 1.3, but I think that some of the things that David Benjiman talked about would have been discovered, especially the keyUpdate-related things, if there had been formal analysis of DTLS 1.3. Please have the FATT take a look.
Russ > On Nov 12, 2024, at 3:29 PM, Joseph Salowey <jsalo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > At IETF 121, we discussed revised DTLS 1.3, aka a draft-ietf-tls-rfc9147bis. > The chairs are proposing starting this I-D as a WG item with the existing RFC > as a base. If you object to this please let the list know by 25 November 2024. > > > Thanks, > > Deirdre, Joe, and Sean > > > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org > To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
