Re: [TLS] WG adoption call: draft-thomson-tls-record-limit

2017-08-28 Thread Martin Thomson
All done, including the PR being merged into the editor's copy. On 29 August 2017 at 00:03, Sean Turner wrote: > It looks like we have consensus to adopt this draft as a working group item. > I’ve set up a GH repo in the TLSWG > repo:https://github.com/tlswg/tls-record-limit. > Please submit t

Re: [TLS] WG adoption call: draft-thomson-tls-record-limit

2017-08-28 Thread Sean Turner
It looks like we have consensus to adopt this draft as a working group item. I’ve set up a GH repo in the TLSWG repo:https://github.com/tlswg/tls-record-limit. Please submit the current draft as a working group item with the filename draft-ietf-tls-record-limit.If you can hold off on mergin

Re: [TLS] WG adoption call: draft-thomson-tls-record-limit

2017-08-17 Thread Martin Thomson
On 4 August 2017 at 22:50, Sean Turner wrote: > At our IETF 99 session, there was support in the room to adopt > draft-thomson-tls-record-limit [0]. We need to confirm this support on the > list so please let the list know whether you support adoption of the draft > and are willing to review/c

Re: [TLS] WG adoption call: draft-thomson-tls-record-limit

2017-08-07 Thread Adam Langley
On Fri, Aug 4, 2017 at 5:50 AM, Sean Turner wrote: > At our IETF 99 session, there was support in the room to adopt > draft-thomson-tls-record-limit [0]. We need to confirm this support on the > list so please let the list know whether you support adoption of the draft > and are willing to revie

Re: [TLS] WG adoption call: draft-thomson-tls-record-limit

2017-08-07 Thread Short, Todd
I support adoption too. -- -Todd Short // tsh...@akamai.com // "One if by land, two if by sea, three if by the Internet." On Aug 5, 2017, at 6:57 AM, Martin Thomson mailto:martin.thom...@gmail.com>> wrote: On 5 August 2017 at 06:07, Benjamin Kaduk mailto:bka...@akamai.

Re: [TLS] WG adoption call: draft-thomson-tls-record-limit

2017-08-05 Thread Martin Thomson
On 5 August 2017 at 06:07, Benjamin Kaduk wrote: > It is currently before 20170818, and I support adoption of this draft and am > willing to review it as it progresses. > > I do agree with Ilari that limiting the ciphertext size seems to make more > sense, but of course we can discuss that post ad

Re: [TLS] WG adoption call: draft-thomson-tls-record-limit

2017-08-04 Thread Benjamin Kaduk
It is currently before 20170818, and I support adoption of this draft and am willing to review it as it progresses. I do agree with Ilari that limiting the ciphertext size seems to make more sense, but of course we can discuss that post adoption. -Ben On 08/04/2017 07:50 AM, Sean Turner wrote: >

Re: [TLS] WG adoption call: draft-thomson-tls-record-limit

2017-08-04 Thread Ilari Liusvaara
On Fri, Aug 04, 2017 at 08:50:31AM -0400, Sean Turner wrote: > At our IETF 99 session, there was support in the room to adopt > draft-thomson-tls-record-limit [0]. We need to confirm this > support on the list so please let the list know whether you support > adoption of the draft and are willing

[TLS] WG adoption call: draft-thomson-tls-record-limit

2017-08-04 Thread Sean Turner
At our IETF 99 session, there was support in the room to adopt draft-thomson-tls-record-limit [0]. We need to confirm this support on the list so please let the list know whether you support adoption of the draft and are willing to review/comment on the draft before 20170818. If you object to