consequences like breaking compliancy to
regulations, to safety and I can just imagine how it could move the risks from
bits and bytes to blood and flesh.
My 0.02 Swiss francs
Arnaud Taddei
Global Security Strategist | Enterprise Security Group
mobile: +41 79 506 1129
Geneva, Switzerland
Good for me
Arnaud Taddei
Global Security Strategist | Enterprise Security Group
mobile: +41 79 506 1129
Geneva, Switzerland
arnaud.tad...@broadcom.com <mailto:arnaud.tad...@broadcom.com> | broadcom.com
> On 30 Oct 2024, at 22:18, Ben Schwartz
> wrote:
>
> Hi Ben,
>
&
+1million
Sent from my iPhone
> On 25 Oct 2024, at 18:00, Sean Turner wrote:
>
> Hello list,
>
> The TLS list is infamous in that it is regarded by some as [insert your
> descriptive word; where the chairs have heard the following words used:
> noxious, toxic, unwelcoming, and rude]. The chai
to precisely describe how
enterprises can do this at the end of 5.3.2
Any feedback welcome but if so, let’s start another email thread to not mix
things
Arnaud Taddei
Global Security Strategist | Enterprise Security Group
mobile: +41 79 506 1129
Geneva, Switzerland
arnaud.tad...@broadcom.com
move on
Arnaud Taddei
Global Security Strategist | Enterprise Security Group
mobile: +41 79 506 1129
Geneva, Switzerland
arnaud.tad...@broadcom.com <mailto:arnaud.tad...@broadcom.com> | broadcom.com
> On 4 Oct 2024, at 20:32, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 4,
Hi Eric
Arnaud Taddei
Global Security Strategist | Enterprise Security Group
mobile: +41 79 506 1129
Geneva, Switzerland
arnaud.tad...@broadcom.com <mailto:arnaud.tad...@broadcom.com> | broadcom.com
> On 4 Oct 2024, at 14:07, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
> I don't really thin
Inline
Arnaud Taddei
Global Security Strategist | Enterprise Security Group
mobile: +41 79 506 1129
Geneva, Switzerland
arnaud.tad...@broadcom.com <mailto:arnaud.tad...@broadcom.com> | broadcom.com
> On 2 Oct 2024, at 16:50, Ben Schwartz
> wrote:
>
> Hi Arnaud,
&
I am taking this thread on the fly and I do have a number of concerns with what
I read and I align with Paul Vixie here.
First I disagree with Ben on “I don’t see any reason why an enterprise, etc.” …
I DO see reasons here confirmed in a campaign of discussions about ECH with no
less than 70 or
Funny I had the SAME question earlier too with someone else.
So, ditto
Arnaud Taddei
Global Security Strategist | Enterprise Security Group
mobile: +41 79 506 1129
Geneva, Switzerland
arnaud.tad...@broadcom.com <mailto:arnaud.tad...@broadcom.com> | broadcom.com
> On 24 Jul 2024,
+1
will do my best to help within the timeline
From: TLS on behalf of Salz, Rich
Date: Tuesday, 12 March 2024 at 13:37
To: Stephen Farrell , Rob Sayre
Cc: tls@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [TLS] Working Group Last Call for ECH
I support advancing this document.
_
recent list
discussion. This message provides a summary of the status:
PRs
* 594: A first proposal to fix the no-sni section [Arnaud Taddei]
I think this is fine and will merge on 2/24 unless people object.
* 602: More explanatory text [EKR]
This is a pretty substantial rewrite of the overview
e are circling back with the authors and expect a revised draft soon-ish.
And yes, I am being vague about the actual time frame.
spt
> On Jan 21, 2024, at 11:02, Arnaud Taddei
> wrote:
>
> +1
>
> From: TLS on behalf of Stephen Farrell
>
> Date: Thursday, 18 January 2
+1
From: TLS on behalf of Stephen Farrell
Date: Thursday, 18 January 2024 at 21:56
To: Salz, Rich , tls@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [TLS] Late holiday gifts
On 18/01/2024 17:46, Salz, Rich wrote:
> Per last IETF meeting [1] I thought ECH was going to go to WGLC. Were we
> waiting for a new draft
Whilst I don’t know Peter, my intervention in San Francisco on this topic was
on the same line.
Am working with the CISO teams of organizations that have to keep their
infrastructure for 50 to 100 years long plans (nuclear power stations,
hydraulic infrastructures, etc.).
And among organizatio
Ditto +1 to Rich
From: TLS on behalf of Bas Westerbaan
Date: Monday, 11 December 2023 at 18:21
To: Salz, Rich
Cc: Hannes Tschofenig ,
TLS@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [TLS] Adoption call for 'TLS 1.2 Feature Freeze'
The draft itself is an exercise in clear communication, and mentioning PQC
explici
Speaking of this, just a naïve question, is there anyone who knows about a
survey with say enterprise organizations on how they see TLS1.2 and their plans
to move to TLS1.3 and where they struggle with?
If not, would it be an idea to organize a survey?
Just 0.02 CHF
From: TLS on behalf of Sea
Am comfortable too
From: TLS on behalf of Salz, Rich
Date: Wednesday, 6 December 2023 at 13:50
To: Deirdre Connolly , TLS@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [TLS] Adoption call for 'TLS 1.2 Feature Freeze'
At the TLS meeting at IETF 118 there was significant support for the draft 'TLS
1.2 is in Feature Fr
I see, thank you, it seems that there is a lot of archeological work to be
done.
Ok at least I can organize my work as perhaps a good first step home work
before being in a position to comment further
> Le 5 oct. 2017 à 11:12, Stephen Farrell a écrit :
>
>
>
> On 05/10/1
Being new to this community, can I actually ask for the analysis of the
‘hundred’s of applications’ which lead to the evolution of TLS 1.3 the way it
is today? Was it captured somewhere or shall I reconstruct this history from
all the discussions in the mailing lists?
Thank you in advance
> Le
19 matches
Mail list logo
