On 3 October 2017 at 20:45, Hanno Böck wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 17:36:03 +
> "Salz, Rich via openssl-dev" wrote:
>
> So I heard chatter about this, but not much details. Which I find
> unfortunate and a bit disturbing. (I'm aware of a single case with
> bluetooth HW, but this sounds like
It's not specific to devops. Here, a quick history lesson:
https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/20356/origin-of-i-can-haz
Cheers
Richard
Ted Marynicz skrev: (4 oktober 2017 10:53:35 CEST)
>Haz?
>
>Is that some kind of devops-speak I am not (yet) aware of?
>
>Ted
>(a grand-father)
>
>On
Haz?
Is that some kind of devops-speak I am not (yet) aware of?
Ted
(a grand-father)
On 3 October 2017 at 18:36, Salz, Rich via openssl-dev <
openssl-dev@openssl.org> wrote:
> Some people have asked why TLS 1.3 isn’t available yet. This might help;
> it’s a draft of a posting for my company’s
Can the people involved in these Tests please speak up what's going on
here? Particularly can you please name vendor names?
Tbe TLSWG mailing list is probably a more effective place to have that
discussion; I was just informing the OpenSSL community of the state of play ;)
--
openssl
Hi,
On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 17:36:03 +
"Salz, Rich via openssl-dev" wrote:
> Tests run by various companies, including Google, Mozilla, and
> Facebook, indicate that the “failure rate” of TLS 1.3 is disturbingly
> high. It appears that network hardware such as routers, gateways,
> load balancers
Some people have asked why TLS 1.3 isn’t available yet. This might help; it’s
a draft of a posting for my company’s blog.
Can I Haz TLS 1.3 ?
Everybody wants to be able to use TLS 1.3. Among the reasons are:
It’s faster – being able to reconnect to a server you’ve
previously u