On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 8:39 PM Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 08:27:02PM -0500, Shumon Huque wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 4:29 AM Ilari Liusvaara <
> ilariliusva...@welho.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I noticed that the "dnssec_chain" extension in the IANA registry lists
> > >
On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 08:27:02PM -0500, Shumon Huque wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 4:29 AM Ilari Liusvaara
> wrote:
>
> > I noticed that the "dnssec_chain" extension in the IANA registry lists
> > only "CH" in the "TLS 1.3" column. However, the extension sends its
> > response in the certifi
On Wed, Feb 16, 2022 at 4:29 AM Ilari Liusvaara
wrote:
> I noticed that the "dnssec_chain" extension in the IANA registry lists
> only "CH" in the "TLS 1.3" column. However, the extension sends its
> response in the certificate message (section 2.2), so I think that
> column should read "CH, CT".
On Wed, Feb 23, 2022, at 09:31, Ben Schwartz wrote:
> In TLS, I think "MUST" means "recipients should validate this if
> possible and fail the handshake if there is a mismatch". Consider a
> client implementation. Upon receipt of a SNIP response, is it supposed
> to cross-check the SNIP answer
On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 4:23 PM David Benjamin
wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 3:58 PM Ben Schwartz 40google@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
>> I continue to support this draft.
>>
>> I am puzzled by the requirement that "A server MUST omit any compatible
>> protocols from this extension". Includ
On Tue, Feb 22, 2022 at 3:58 PM Ben Schwartz wrote:
> I continue to support this draft.
>
> I am puzzled by the requirement that "A server MUST omit any compatible
> protocols from this extension". Including them seems harmless, and
> omitting them seems to impose an unstated requirement that (1
I continue to support this draft.
I am puzzled by the requirement that "A server MUST omit any compatible
protocols from this extension". Including them seems harmless, and
omitting them seems to impose an unstated requirement that (1) both parties
also include the ALPN extension and (2) the impl
I think it would probably be better to require it to be sent even if empty.
Then you could measure how often it was implemented.
On Mon, Feb 21, 2022 at 9:36 PM Yoav Nir wrote:
> I have just submitted PR #20 to allow unacknowledged flags. It is a
> rewrite of section 3 (rules)
>
> https://githu
