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
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.
>>
>
>
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
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
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
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
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
I mentioned this to Ekr off-list, but I thought I would add one more thing.
What did we conclude about a client that refuses to provide a raw public key
when asked by a server? Are we in a position to change the minimum length from
1 to 0 in the response? The thread didn't really end with a
