Most of this can be handled in the issue discussion now, but just a few follow-ups.
On Thu, May 28, 2026, at 22:55, Michael Richardson wrote: > Fine, then why is there a TLS MTI that excludes AES_128_CCM_8? :-) There isn't. TLS requires AES_128_GCM_SHA256. And that's not a profile, that's the *protocol*. A different MTI in a profile is a fork, not a profile. > > I'm not confident that the claims about congestion collapse and ACKs in > > Section 10 holds. ACKs improve efficiency, sure, but claims about them > > helping with congestion collapse seem overblown. The recommendations > > here are otherwise good. > > I'm unclear if there something we need to change. Don't make claims about congestion collapse. > > The size of handshakes is clearly a burden here, but the working group > > can and should address that point. The text might have been written at > > a different time, but circumstances have changed and the document can't > > duck this issue any more. > > The TLS or the UTA WG? UTA. For this document, at least. TLS seems incapable of reaching consensus on anything in this space, but UTA need not be constrained by the failures in TLS. _______________________________________________ Uta mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
