On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 2:27 PM, Joseph Birr-Pixton
wrote:
> Just a quick question. In TLS1.3 we have:
>
> enum {
> rsa_pkcs1_sha1 (0x0201),
> rsa_pkcs1_sha256 (0x0401),
> rsa_pkcs1_sha384 (0x0501),
> rsa_pkcs1_sha512 (0x0601),
> ecdsa_secp25
On Sat, Oct 29, 2016 at 10:27:58PM +0100, Joseph Birr-Pixton wrote:
> Just a quick question. In TLS1.3 we have:
>
> enum {
> rsa_pkcs1_sha1 (0x0201),
> rsa_pkcs1_sha256 (0x0401),
> rsa_pkcs1_sha384 (0x0501),
> rsa_pkcs1_sha512 (0x0601),
> ecds
Just a quick question. In TLS1.3 we have:
enum {
rsa_pkcs1_sha1 (0x0201),
rsa_pkcs1_sha256 (0x0401),
rsa_pkcs1_sha384 (0x0501),
rsa_pkcs1_sha512 (0x0601),
ecdsa_secp256r1_sha256 (0x0403),
ecdsa_secp384r1_sha384 (0x0503),
ec
Hi.
This is mostly a maintenance version. I’ve updated references and removed some
TBDs for ideas that were never pursued.
IMO this is ready.
Yoav
> On 29 Oct 2016, at 23:02, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
>
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts
> directori
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Transport Layer Security of the IETF.
Title : Elliptic Curve Cryptography (ECC) Cipher Suites for
Transport Layer Security (TLS) Versions 1.2 and Earlier
Aut
On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 08:35:45PM +0200, Martin Rex wrote:
> Ilari Liusvaara wrote:
> > Martin Rex wrote:
> >> Joseph Salowey wrote:
> >>
> >> There are two seriously backwards-incompatible changes in the
> >> current proposal that provide zero value, but completely break
> >> backwards-compatibi
