Hubert Kario writes:
>On Monday 13 June 2016 19:51:42 Peter Gutmann wrote:
>> Hubert Kario writes:
>> >to be pedantic, the RFC describes itself "a profile" while in reality
>> >it modifies the protocol in a way that will make it incompatible
>> >with "vanilla" TLS 1.2 implementations
>>
>> Oh, r
On Tuesday, June 14, 2016 04:37:09 am Martin Thomson wrote:
> On 13 June 2016 at 21:27, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> > On Mon 2016-06-13 15:00:03 -0400, Joseph Salowey wrote:
> > > 1. Use the same key for handshake and application traffic (as in the
> > > current draft-13)
> > >
> > > or
> > >
> >
Hi Ángel,
Sorry for the delay in the response. I was asking some input from
developers of news clients.
It implies here that the client will have to know somehow what kinds
of newsgroups or articles need extra-security. The client will have
to send the right COMPRESS commands at the right
On Wed 2016-06-15 12:23:38 -0400, Ilari Liusvaara wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 09:44:18AM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
>> On Wed 2016-06-15 04:44:59 -0400, Yoav Nir wrote:
>>
>> To be clear, we're being asked to trade these things off against each
>> other here, but there are other option
On Jun 3, 2016, at 17:54, Joseph Salowey wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, the TLS record framing is not easily compatible with having
> multiple keys used simultaneously: because we encrypt the content type, it is
> not possible to use it to determine which key to use to decrypt. We examined
> a numb
I prefer (1)
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 5:51 PM Dan Harkins wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> On Mon, June 13, 2016 12:00 pm, Joseph Salowey wrote:
> > For background please see [1].
> >
> > Please respond to this message indicating which of the following options
> > you prefer by Monday June, 20, 2016
> >
>
Hello,
On Mon, June 13, 2016 12:00 pm, Joseph Salowey wrote:
> For background please see [1].
>
> Please respond to this message indicating which of the following options
> you prefer by Monday June, 20, 2016
>
> 1. Use the same key for handshake and application traffic (as in the
> current dra
On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 09:44:18AM -0400, Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
> On Wed 2016-06-15 04:44:59 -0400, Yoav Nir wrote:
>
> To be clear, we're being asked to trade these things off against each
> other here, but there are other options which were ruled out in the
> prior framing of the question w
On Wed 2016-06-15 04:44:59 -0400, Yoav Nir wrote:
> I disagree that this is a low level crypto decision, or at least that this is
> mainly so.
>
> There is the question of whether using the same key for application data and
> handshake is harmful. That question is mainly low level crypto and cou
> On 14 Jun 2016, at 19:25, Joseph Lorenzo Hall wrote:
>
> s/it's/its/ in one place in your errata text, Aaron.
Thank you. I suggest the RFC Errata editors change text and further
additions/recommendations by others along the way when publishing (if that's
the right way to proceed, I'm quite
Hi, Nikos
> On 15 Jun 2016, at 11:00 AM, Nikos Mavrogiannopoulos wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2016-06-13 at 12:00 -0700, Joseph Salowey wrote:
>> For background please see [1].
>>
>> Please respond to this message indicating which of the following
>> options you prefer by Monday June, 20, 2016
>>
>> 1.
On Mon, 2016-06-13 at 12:00 -0700, Joseph Salowey wrote:
> For background please see [1].
>
> Please respond to this message indicating which of the following
> options you prefer by Monday June, 20, 2016
>
> 1. Use the same key for handshake and application traffic (as in the
> current draft-13
12 matches
Mail list logo
