No need to submit a new one -- I can edit it as needed.
-Ben
On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 05:05:57AM +, Masato Gosui wrote:
> If a new errata proposing the PDU change is needed, I gladly submit it.
>
> --
> Masato Gosui
>
> On Fri, Aug 17, 2018 at 10:25:47AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
>
Hi Geoff and Richard,
Thanks for raising these points….please see below for my comments:
From: Richard Barnes
Date: Tuesday, August 21, 2018 at 07:06
To: "geo...@geoffk.org"
Cc: "ncamw...@cisco.com" , ""
Subject: Re: [TLS] integrity only ciphersuites
On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 7:46 PM Geoffrey K
Hi Eric,
In response to your 2 questions below:
1. Should they be marked "Recommended" in the registry?
[NCW] No, these cipher suites should not be “Recommended” in the registry.
1. Should the TLS WG spend time reviewing these documents?
[NCW] I am not sure what you mean (intent-wise) by
On 8/22/18 at 6:55 PM, pgut...@cs.auckland.ac.nz (Peter Gutmann) wrote:
Is there any known actual use of raw public keys for TLS?
I know of a case where TLS (aka SSL) was not used because of the
lack of support for raw public keys. This work is 20 years old,
but I'm not sure the situation ha
Hi, all.
Regarding the raw public, I would like to contribute a few words for you to
think about it.
Raw public key is useful for IoT networks due to the constraint of bandwidth
and processing capability of devices. A normal certificate takes about a few
hundred bytes while an raw public key
