TED]>; "'Rainer Gerhards'"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 10, 2008 12:00 AM
Subject: RE: [Syslog] transport-tls-11 review
>
> Thanks for your comments! Response inline.
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: t
>
> >
> > 5.2. Cipher Suites
> >
> > Operators MAY choose to disable older/weaker cipher
> > suites for TLS
> >despite the tradeoff of interoperability, for example, if
> > the cipher
> >suite specified in the specification is found weak in the future.
> >
> > **suggest
> >
> > Op
Thanks for your comments! Response inline.
> -Original Message-
> From: tom.petch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 9:13 AM
> To: Miao Fuyou; 'Rainer Gerhards'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Syslog
'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "syslog"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, November 30, 2007 12:18 PM
Subject: Re: [Syslog] transport-tls-11 review
> On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 11:13:04AM +0100, tom.petch wrote:
>
> > Also, there are forms of TLS with authenticatio
On Fri, Nov 30, 2007 at 11:13:04AM +0100, tom.petch wrote:
> Also, there are forms of TLS with authentication where no
> certificates are required and we should cater for those; they may
> become - I hope - quite widespread.
Can you be more concrete what you have in mind?
/js
--
Juergen Schoe
- Original Message -
From: "David Harrington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "'tom.petch'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; "'Miao Fuyou'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>;
"'Rainer Gerhards'" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PRO
dbh
> -Original Message-
> From: tom.petch [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2007 12:13 PM
> To: Miao Fuyou; 'Rainer Gerhards'; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [Syslog] transport-tls-11 review
>
>
> > >
> > > ===
> >
> >
> > ===
> > The server MUST be implemented to support certificate and certificate
> >generation,
> > ===
> >
> > I do not think it is a MUST that a server must contain code
> > to generate certificates. This should be left to the
> > implementation. There is already the requirement to use
Hi Miao,
a few comments, rest snipped...
> > Section 1.1: shouldn't it simply refer to -protocol for terms
> > defined there? I think it makes it more consistent.
>
> Agree, so we should only leave "TLS client" and "TLS server" to be
> define in
> Syslog/TLS darft, right?
That is my suggestion.
Hi Rainer,
Thanks for our comments, in-line,
Regards,
Miao
> -Original Message-
> From: Rainer Gerhards [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2007 12:24 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [Syslog] transport-tls-11 review
>
> Hi all,
>
&
Hi all,
I reviewed tls-11 today. Some notes:
Section 1.1: shouldn't it simply refer to -protocol for terms defined
there? I think it makes it more consistent.
Section 4.2:
===
Authentication in
this specification means that the recipient of a certificate must
actually validate the cert
11 matches
Mail list logo
