On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 8:25 AM, Dave Garrett <davemgarr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, September 02, 2016 07:32:06 am Eric Rescorla wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 3:42 AM, Ilari Liusvaara < > ilariliusva...@welho.com> wrote: > > > I also don't see why this should be in TLS 1.3 spec, instead of being > > > its own spec (I looked up how much process BS it would be to get the > > > needed registrations: informative RFC would do). > > > > I also am not following why we need to do this now. The reason we > defined SHA-2 in > > a new RFC was because (a) SHA-1 was looking weak and (b) we had to make > significant > > changes to TLS to allow the use of SHA-2. This does not seem to be that > case. > > I don't think we strictly _need_ to do this now, however I think it's a > good idea given that we'll need to do it eventually I'm not sure that that's true. -Ekr
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
