Looks like the same link got included twice? But thank you, I'll try to
rework the language again to reference that.
—Sam
On Mon, Oct 18, 2021, at 00:50, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 11:25:01PM -0400, Dale R. Worley wrote:
>> "Sam Whited" writes:
>> >> The appearance of this
On Fri, Oct 15, 2021 at 11:25:01PM -0400, Dale R. Worley wrote:
> "Sam Whited" writes:
> >> The appearance of this paragraph in this section suggests (but does
> >> not assert) that in TLS 1.3, the cipher negotiation always results in
> >> unique master secrets. Indeed, it would be extremely
"Sam Whited" writes:
>> The appearance of this paragraph in this section suggests (but does
>> not assert) that in TLS 1.3, the cipher negotiation always results in
>> unique master secrets. Indeed, it would be extremely convenient if
>> (standard-conformant) use of TLS 1.3 always did so, and if
Thank you for the detailed review! I believe I have addressed your
feedback in a draft that I will upload shortly, but have a few
comments (inline).
On Thu, Oct 14, 2021, at 20:20, Dale Worley via Datatracker wrote:
> Given that this is the introduction and RFC 5929 is referenced without
> its
Reviewer: Dale Worley
Review result: Ready with Nits
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair. Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.
For more
