No objection, it looks good. I don't see any objections on the list so I say merge it.
On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com> wrote: > It sounds like we have general consensus here. Does anyone object to my > merging > this PR? > > -Ekr > > > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 10:34 AM, Ilari Liusvaara < > ilariliusva...@welho.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 05:37:20PM +0000, David Benjamin wrote: >> > On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 at 8:22 PM Eric Rescorla <e...@rtfm.com> wrote: >> > >> > >> > I would probably characterize it less as suites vs orthogonality, but as >> > wanting to keep divisions in meaningful and universal places and not >> > splitting up tightly-coupled decisions. The flexibility from >> orthogonality >> > can be handy, but going too far---as I believe TLS 1.2 did with >> signature, >> > prehash, and curve---complicates everything. Imagine if negotiating >> > AES_128_GCM required separately negotiating block cipher AES-128, mode >> CTR, >> > and MAC GHASH. >> >> It isn't even orthogonal, it is coupled, which is way worse and quite >> difficult to implement correctly. >> >> I now consider the way TLS 1.3 draft / RFC4492bis draft currently does >> EdDSA negotiation a bad idea (what is proposed here is vast improvement). >> >> >> -Ilari >> > > > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list > TLS@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls > >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
