I think anyone implementing would have discovered them. The other question which I'll try not to ask too frequently is at what point do we just point users at QUIC?
On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 12:43 PM Russ Housley <hous...@vigilsec.com> wrote: > > 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
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
