Re: [TLS] [Cfrg] Closing out tls1.3 "Limits on key usage" PRs (#765/#769).

On 03/02/2017 05:54 PM, Hal Murray wrote: > > cry...@brainhub.org said: >> I also think that counting in blocks is cleaner. Counting in bytes is a >> close alternative. > > Does counting bytes work? If the real limit is blocks, I think you will have > to round up the byte count when you

Re: [TLS] [Cfrg] Closing out tls1.3 "Limits on key usage" PRs (#765/#769).

cry...@brainhub.org said: > I also think that counting in blocks is cleaner. Counting in bytes is a > close alternative. Does counting bytes work? If the real limit is blocks, I think you will have to round up the byte count when you send a partial block. If re-keying too often isn't too

Re: [TLS] [Cfrg] Closing out tls1.3 "Limits on key usage" PRs (#765/#769).

Aaron Zauner wrote: > I'm not sure that text on key-usage limits in blocks in a spec > that fundamentally deals in records is less confusing, quite > the opposite (at least to me). 1. Consider an implementation that negotiates with another implementation to use a very large record

[TLS] I-D Action: draft-ietf-tls-rfc4492bis-13.txt

A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories. This draft is a work item of the Transport Layer Security of the IETF. Title : Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) Cipher Suites for Transport Layer Security (TLS) Versions 1.2 and Earlier

Re: [TLS] [Cfrg] Closing out tls1.3 "Limits on key usage" PRs (#765/#769).

From: Martin Thomson > Date: Wednesday, March 1, 2017 at 4:18 PM To: 'Quynh' > Cc: Watson Ladd >, "c...@irtf.org"

Re: [TLS] AD review of draft-ietf-tls-rfc4492bis-12.txt

Thanks Yoav, Those all look like fine resolutions for my comments. Cheers, S. On 02/03/17 06:47, Yoav Nir wrote: > >> On 17 Feb 2017, at 18:58, Stephen Farrell wrote: >> >> >> Hiya, >> >> I've had a read of this and asked for IETF LC to start. >> >> My comments