Re: [Emu] RFC 7170bis Issue 4: do we want to keep PAC/PAC-Ackonwledgment?

2023-01-04 Thread Alan DeKok 
On Jan 4, 2023, at 5:09 AM, Eliot Lear  wrote:
> 
> We have discussed not adding a lot into TEAP, but it might be good to 
> consider removing some stuff. PAC tops the list of things I'd like to see 
> removed.  This is relevant to Erratum 5844 in that the example given contains 
> a PAC/PAC-Acknowledgment.  This also, has bearing on whether or not we bump 
> the TEAP version.

  I think it's best to leave it in.  We already have TLS 1.3 updates which 
remove the PAC.  That doesn't require a version update.

  Which says to me even more that we should update this document with TLS 1.3 
issues.

  Alan DeKok.

___
Emu mailing list
Emu@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu

[Emu] RFC 7170bis Issue 4: do we want to keep PAC/PAC-Ackonwledgment?

2023-01-04 Thread Eliot Lear 
We have discussed not adding a lot into TEAP, but it might be good to 
consider removing some stuff. PAC tops the list of things I'd like to 
see removed.  This is relevant to Erratum 5844 in that the example given 
contains a PAC/PAC-Acknowledgment.  This also, has bearing on whether or 
not we bump the TEAP version.


Eliot

___
Emu mailing list
Emu@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu