Hi Rich,
Thanks for re-reading the draft. Below are some answers to your questions -
note that we haven't discussed them as a team and my co-authors may well
disagree.
Best,
Yaron
On 2/3/22, 21:47, "Salz, Rich" <rs...@akamai.com> wrote:
I re-read the document. It's very nice. A few nits, I think all are
editorial and can be fixed later. I support moving this doc forward.
I note that you say "use encrypted client hello when it's ready" Do you
want to make the same recommendation for DTLS 1.3?
Yes, we probably should.
Do you want to say anything about EdDSA and the kerfuffle going on in cfrg@
mailing list right now? No is a good, and probably sane, answer.
No. We discussed it briefly and although we added 25519 for the ECDH key
exchange, we are not recommending (or even discussing) the use of EdDSA for
signatures or certs. So there's nowhere to even include such a comment.
4.3 needs a tweak to get {RFC8446, Section 9.1} right.
4.4, do you want to say why 2**24.5 is used for both? Simpler and
therefore easier to get right?
Yes.
5. Should the applicability statement include things like QUIC and NTS?
Good question, we would need to discuss it.
5. Rather than refer to 2026, I think you should refer to the BCP whatever
it is.
Indeed.
6.1 Should the references to RFC6125 be changed to the draft 6125bis?
You and Peter know best.
_______________________________________________
Uta mailing list
Uta@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/uta
