On Monday, December 07, 2015 04:00:54 pm Software Engineer 979 wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm currently developing an data transfer application using OpenSSL. The
> application is required to securely transfer large amounts of data over a
> low latency/high bandwidth network. The data being transferred l
Hi,
We have uploaded version 03 of draft-mattsson-tls-ecdhe-psk-aead. Russ
pointed out that the document was totally pointed to TLS 1.2 and that it
made sense to cover both TLS 1.2 and TLS 1.3. We agreed.
The updated version refers to TLS 1.3 [I-D.ietf-tls-tls13] as well as DTLS
1.2 [RFC6347]. It
> On 7 Dec 2015, at 11:00 PM, Software Engineer 979
> wrote:
>
>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I'm currently developing an data transfer application using OpenSSL. The
>> application is required to securely transfer large amounts of data over a
>> low latency/high bandwidth network. The data being transf
Dave Garrett writes:
>A TLS extension to negotiate max length might be viable.
I think a better starting point would be to look at the implementation that's
causing the problem. There's nothing magical about a 16K max segment size
that causes poor performance, TCP typically has an MSS of 1400-1
On Tue, 08 Dec 2015 11:11:52 +0100, Peter Gutmann
wrote:
Dave Garrett writes:
A TLS extension to negotiate max length might be viable.
I think a better starting point would be to look at the implementation
that's
causing the problem. There's nothing magical about a 16K max segment
s
The following errata report has been held for document update
for RFC7568, "Deprecating Secure Sockets Layer Version 3.0".
--
You may review the report below and at:
http://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=7568&eid=4561
---
On 12/06/2015 08:50 AM, Bill Cox wrote:
> I think the current spec does not describe well enough how to
> implement secure 0-RTT infrastructure. Instead, it seems to recommend
> against using 0-RTT, with a pretty dire warning about the insecurity
> of 0-RTT. I think that nearly the entire world w
