Re: [TLS] WGLC for draft-ietf-tls-rfc8446bis and draft-ietf-tls-rfc8447bis

2023-04-05 Thread Rob Sayre
On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 12:53 PM Eric Rescorla wrote: > > > On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 12:50 PM Rob Sayre wrote: > >> On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 12:26 PM Eric Rescorla wrote: >> >>> Thanks for your feedback. Most of these are editorial comments and >>> so I think they're my decision as editor about whic

Re: [TLS] WGLC for draft-ietf-tls-rfc8446bis and draft-ietf-tls-rfc8447bis

2023-04-05 Thread Eric Rescorla
On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 12:50 PM Rob Sayre wrote: > On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 12:26 PM Eric Rescorla wrote: > >> Thanks for your feedback. Most of these are editorial comments and >> so I think they're my decision as editor about which ones to take >> absent some instruction from the chairs. >> > >

Re: [TLS] WGLC for draft-ietf-tls-rfc8446bis and draft-ietf-tls-rfc8447bis

2023-04-05 Thread Rob Sayre
On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 12:26 PM Eric Rescorla wrote: > Thanks for your feedback. Most of these are editorial comments and > so I think they're my decision as editor about which ones to take > absent some instruction from the chairs. > I agree concerning most of them. One just finds nitpicks if y

Re: [TLS] WGLC for draft-ietf-tls-rfc8446bis and draft-ietf-tls-rfc8447bis

2023-04-05 Thread Eric Rescorla
This was discussed extensively when 8446 was published and there wasn't consensus to make such a change. If the chairs want to re-open this issue, please weigh in. -Ekr On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 7:32 PM Stephen Farrell wrote: > > Hiya, > > On 05/04/2023 02:47, Sean Turner wrote: > > A post IETF 1

Re: [TLS] WGLC for draft-ietf-tls-rfc8446bis and draft-ietf-tls-rfc8447bis

2023-04-05 Thread Eric Rescorla
Thanks for your feedback. Most of these are editorial comments and so I think they're my decision as editor about which ones to take absent some instruction from the chairs. On Tue, Apr 4, 2023 at 10:43 PM Rob Sayre wrote: > Hi, > > I'm still not sure about the list/vector rename. Aside from tha

[TLS] Fwd: WGLC for draft-ietf-tls-rfc8446bis and draft-ietf-tls-rfc8447bis

2023-04-05 Thread Achim Kraus
Too fast. Very sorry, it is already linked to that thread. Weitergeleitete Nachricht Betreff: Re: [TLS] WGLC for draft-ietf-tls-rfc8446bis and draft-ietf-tls-rfc8447bis Datum: Wed, 5 Apr 2023 10:47:11 +0200 Von: Achim Kraus An: Martin Thomson , tls@ietf.org Let me try to link

Re: [TLS] WGLC for draft-ietf-tls-rfc8446bis and draft-ietf-tls-rfc8447bis

2023-04-05 Thread Achim Kraus
Let me try to link this thread to the similar question raised during the implementation of RPK in openssl. https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/9rXQFjYhAS0z-ZJleMVUgWmvhAA/ My personal "favorite interpretation" of RFC5246 7.4.6. Client Certificate is to stick to that definition there reg