>From the perspective of someone who spends a lot of his time writing/editing
>standards, I agree with the Errata and disagree with Peter's comment. If
>"abort" and "terminate" mean the same thing, that should be made clear. Words
>in standards need to have specific definitions. A developer who
I think the point here is that the "transport" isn't a "data stream", the
transport is what the data stream is delivered over. I agree that the intended
meaning is clear, but the text as written isn't correct, and if the draft's
being corrected anyway this should be corrected too.
William
Hi all -- as editor of 1609.2 (and a contributor to 103 097) I'd like to
recommend that the WG moves forward with consideration of this draft. There
are a number of initiatives in the connected vehicle space that need TLS
with 1609.2 certificates, and in particular ISO 21177, which is currently
in
Hi Wang,
The 1609.2 certificate format consists of both explicit and implicit
certificates. The explicit certificates are in 1609.2 format, not in X.509
format.
Cheers,
William
On Mon, Aug 27, 2018 at 4:43 AM, Wang Haiguang <
wang.haiguang.shield...@huawei.com> wrote:
> Hi, Mounira
>
> Thanks
Hi Ilari,
>> - The construction looks like it mixes different kinds of structures:
1609.2 Data of type signed versus TLS 1.3 signature. I do not think
this is cryptographically kosher. In fact, I think the call for
"extreme care" for certain kinds of modifications from TLS 1.3
specificatio
I’m happy to submit the draft as it stands. I think it’s covered by the
recharter below under “maintain” the spec, though perhaps we should suggest
that this is changed to “maintain and, as necessary, extend”.
Cheers,
William
On Oct 24, 2018, 8:20 PM -0400, Sean Turner , wrote:
> With the final
ed message --
From:
Date: Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 10:32 PM
Subject: New Version Notification for draft-whyte-qsh-tls13-01.txt
To: Zhenfei Zhang , William Whyte <
wwh...@securityinnovation.com>, "John M. Schanck" <
jscha...@securityinnovation.com>
A new version of I-D,
If we want to change to “key erasure” we should synch with CFRG and SAAG to
ensure it’s used IETF-wide. I don’t think that “forward secrecy” is so
broken that it needs fixing.
Cheers,
William
*From:* TLS [mailto:tls-boun...@ietf.org] *On Behalf Of *Tony Arcieri
*Sent:* Monday, November 30,
I'd like to just check and see if there are any objections to this PR.
There seems no reason to bake a particular cryptographic family into our
terminology. This is a low-cost change that will save us from looking silly
in a few years time.
Cheers,
William
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 1:19 PM, Sean T
I'm confused by the line "These messages are not encrypted", because on a
plain reading it could mean that the authenticator is sent outside the
encrypted TLS session. That would be bad because it would mean that clients
that wanted to authenticate themselves but to the server only wouldn't be
able
That makes sense, but it'd be good to clarify the text. Thanks!
William
-- sent from my phone
On Nov 1, 2016 11:57 AM, "Ilari Liusvaara" wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 04:41:44AM -0400, William Whyte wrote:
> > I'm confused by the line "These message
Right. I fee l strongly that it'd be wise to bless a single 256-bit cipher
as part of the core TLS 1.3 family of techniques, but I don't feel strongly
that it should be AES-256. ChaCha?
Cheers,
William
On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 9:55 AM, Salz, Rich wrote:
> > There's an argument that it's worth b
There's an argument that it's worth building in a 256-bit cipher for
quantum resistance. Not clear that AES-256 is the best 256-bit cipher
though.
William
On Fri, Feb 24, 2017 at 9:07 AM, Salz, Rich wrote:
> > Assuming 256-bit AES-CCM suites are needed, I think the better place to
> put
> > the
Link to that draft: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-whyte-qsh-tls13-02
Cheers,
William
On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 2:42 PM, Scott Fluhrer (sfluhrer) <
sfluh...@cisco.com> wrote:
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: TLS [mailto:tls-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Douglas Stebila
> > Sent: Mon
Sorry! Link to the most recent version... https://tools.ietf.org/html/
draft-whyte-qsh-tls13-04
William
On Thu, Apr 20, 2017 at 1:08 PM, William Whyte
wrote:
> Link to that draft: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-whyte-qsh-tls13-02
>
> Cheers,
>
> William
>
> On Wed, Ap
15 matches
Mail list logo
