Hi,
Doesn’t it depend on whether it would be easier to do this select* or deal
with multiple validations in the same message? No one’s said that exactly
afaik, but I haven’t watched the meeting yet.
thanks,
Rob
* in the recent past, the stuff I’ve worked on has made this easy, but I
agree they’r
That is a fair point. I will make the update and submit a new draft.
Thank you for the feedback.
Ashley Kopman
>
> On Jul 25, 2022, at 4:25 PM, Russ Housley wrote:
>
> I was thinking the same thing during the presentation. An extension for
> SCVP seems fine to me. Then in the future, if
I noticed some confusion today about the topic of ambiguous transcripts in
cTLS. My claim was not that any single cTLS profile has an ambiguous
transcript. If such a thing were true, I believe that would be a bug in
the cTLS specification.
Instead, I was trying to highlight the concern of "profi
Draft minutes at https://notes.ietf.org/notes-ietf-114-tls?edit And attached.
# TLS at IETF 114
## Administrivia (5 minutes)
- Blue sheets; log into the "local" meetecho tool
- Minute-taker: Rich Salz with help from Nick Doty
- Jabber Scribe
- NOTE WELL
- Agenda revision; "TLS flags" document mo
Hi all,
First of all, I think this document is very interesting and useful in scenarios
like communication between TEE and client. In my point of view, I think the
protocol could support other customized attestation formats for a wide range of
use. For example, maybe a integrity measurement res
I was thinking the same thing during the presentation. An extension for SCVP
seems fine to me. Then in the future, if another validation comes along some
day, a new extension can be assigned for that protocol.
Russ
> On Jul 25, 2022, at 4:13 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
>
> Take this:
>
> str
> We have a poor track record of being able to use these nested extension
> points and it will be more efficient to just put the SCVP pieces in their own
> extension.
Yes! For example, the "SNI hostname" is such a nested construct, nobody uses
anything other than "a hostname string."
Wrappin
Take this:
struct {
PathValidationType path_validation_type;
select (path_validation_type) {
case scvp: SCVPValidationRequest;
} request;
} PathValidationRequest;
enum { scvp(1), (255) } PathValidationType;
This adds a layer of extensibility that doesn't do a lot. Please
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 9258
Title: Importing External Pre-Shared Keys (PSKs)
for TLS 1.3
Author: D. Benjamin,
C. A. Wood
Status: Standards Track
A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
RFC 9257
Title: Guidance for External Pre-Shared Key
(PSK) Usage in TLS
Author: R. Housley,
J. Hoyland,
M. Sethi,
10 matches
Mail list logo
