On Thursday, 1 December 2016 09:43:54 CET Martin Thomson wrote:
> Asking ALL TLS implementations to change to accommodate these things
> is a pretty blunt instrument. I want to be sure that this is
> necessary. (FWIW, I think that this is a reasonable request, I would
> probably be OK with a smal
Asking ALL TLS implementations to change to accommodate these things
is a pretty blunt instrument. I want to be sure that this is
necessary. (FWIW, I think that this is a reasonable request, I would
probably be OK with a smaller maximum by default even.)
On 1 December 2016 at 00:22, Hubert Kario
On Wednesday, 30 November 2016 11:20:01 CET Martin Thomson wrote:
> On 30 November 2016 at 05:54, Thomas Pornin wrote:
> > Any comments?
>
> I'm ambivalent on this generally: though I think that the general
> notion is OK, I'm not sure about the details.
>
> In particular, you need to be clearer
Fragment Length negotiation
On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 09:10:00PM +, Fossati, Thomas (Nokia - GB)
wrote:
> I like your proposal, but I'm not convinced that overloading the
> semantics of an already existing extension when used in combination
> with a specific version of t
On 30 November 2016 at 05:54, Thomas Pornin wrote:
> Any comments?
I'm ambivalent on this generally: though I think that the general
notion is OK, I'm not sure about the details.
In particular, you need to be clearer in your motivations: the point
is to ensure that little things (really little t
On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 09:10:00PM +, Fossati, Thomas (Nokia - GB)
wrote:
> I like your proposal, but I'm not convinced that overloading the
> semantics of an already existing extension when used in combination
> with a specific version of the protocol is necessarily the best
> strategy. Besid
> On 24 Nov 2016, at 20:50, Thomas Pornin wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I know that I am a bit late to the party, but I have a suggestion for
> the upcoming TLS 1.3.
>
> Context: I am interested in TLS support in constrained architectures,
> specifically those which have very little RAM. I recently pu
Hi Thomas,
your observations are in line with what we had noticed as well, see
Section 6 of
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-fossati-tls-iot-optimizations-00
Ciao
Hannes
On 11/24/2016 08:50 PM, Thomas Pornin wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I know that I am a bit late to the party, but I have a suggestion
Hi Thomas,
We encountered the same issue and suggested something similar in [1] --
although not at the same level of detail as you below.
I like your proposal, but I'm not convinced that overloading the semantics
of an already existing extension when used in combination with a specific
version of
Hello,
I know that I am a bit late to the party, but I have a suggestion for
the upcoming TLS 1.3.
Context: I am interested in TLS support in constrained architectures,
specifically those which have very little RAM. I recently published a
first version of an implementation of TLS 1.0 to 1.2, that
10 matches
Mail list logo
