On Tue, Mar 1, 2016 at 7:01 PM, Martin Thomson <martin.thom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 2 March 2016 at 13:55, Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com> wrote: > > I think a "safer" profile of TLS, as in "implement the following features > > (section XXX, YYY) and not the following (section ZZZ)" then that seems > like > > something that might potentially be a useful exercise. Depending on > length, > > this might eventually make sense to pull into TLS 1.3 as an appendix or > just > > leave as a self-contained document. > > Yeah, something like this would have been very helpful for TCPINC. Or > for protocols like COAP. > > I think that a description of the "good parts" of TLS 1.3 would be a > relatively short document if it were self-contained. The core is > pretty simple. > Reading this over, I wonder if we're talking about the same thing. It's probably my fault for using the word "self-contained" here, so in the interest of clarifying, what I meant here was "separate". Specifically, I think it's not going to work well to have a document that (for instance) replicates the rules about wire encodings, crypto, etc. [0] I do think it would probably be OK to have a document that profiled TLS 1.3 and then referred to the relevant sections in the main document for details. -Ekr [0] Though of course simplifications to this text are welcome. > Though, as ekr mentioned, copying the main spec could be bad. The > point of something like this is to create something that would talk to > a full implementation, not to create a protocol fork. >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
