Hi Mohit,
I read Jim's email and he is not saying that you should make it an optional to
support feature.
The issue is:
- are you trying to change the functionality of TLS 1.3 with this draft, and
- is there a good reason to do so?
In this case, the "SHOULD" statement gives an implementer
Below is the summary of the TEAP errata resolutions. The text that will be
sent to the AD is in the linked emails. The GitHub PR is provided to make
it easier to review the revision in context. Anything that is marked for
final review will be sent to the AD next week if there are no objections
I think this one is ready to go.
The PR for section 3: https://github.com/emu-wg/teap-errata/pull/20
Errata 5845: https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata/eid5845
Proposed Status: Verified
Revision:
Section 3.3.1 says:
EAP method messages are carried within EAP-Payload TLVs defined in
Section
Revision for 8544. The wording needs some review. Additional revisions
were made to section 4.2.13 in 5775.
PR Section 5: https://github.com/emu-wg/teap-errata/pull/19
PR section 3: https://github.com/emu-wg/teap-errata/pull/22
PR section 3: https://github.com/emu-wg/teap-errata/pull/23
PR
This revision removes the modification to section 5.4 to erratum 5775. It
also leaves the discussion of the 0 MSK to a separate paragraph to be
revised in 5770. I think this revision is ready. Please comment on the
list or the PR if you do not think it is ready.
PR for section 5:
The section 5 revision is rewritten to reflect handling of the case where
no MSK is generated and text on handling the 0 MSK is moved from errata
5770. this erratum could use more review. Please comment on the list or
in the PR.
Section 4 PR - https://github.com/emu-wg/teap-errata/pull/12
This revision has small changes to the text in the length field and changes
the text that describes what j represents to the last successfully
generated IMCK. I think this revision is ready. Please comment on the
list or the PR if you do not think it is ready.
PR for section 5 is:
On Fri, Oct 23, 2020 at 9:20 AM Jouni Malinen wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 05:44:33PM +0300, Oleg Pekar wrote:
> > The Authority-ID TLV is used by the client to identify the TEAP server it
> > is talking to. If the same client talks to more than one TEAP server - it
> > can keep PACs or
Hi Michael,
Absolutely, the text which Joe sent (with subject Consensus Call on OCSP
usage), and which I re-iterated in my email is only saying that OCSP stapling
is mandatory to implement on the server. Clients SHOULD implement and use it
but of course they are free not do so.
However, you
