Re: [TLS] Should CCM_8 CSs be Recommended?

This is exactly how I think about it. spt > On Oct 4, 2017, at 12:11, Andrei Popov wrote: > > It seems that CCM_8 falls in the “limited applicability” bucket. However, > there’s nothing wrong with IoT specs requiring these ciphers in their TLS > profiles. > >

Re: [TLS] Should CCM_8 CSs be Recommended?

I put this in a PR: https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates/pull/46/files spt > On Oct 4, 2017, at 12:37, Salz, Rich wrote: > > Perhaps change the list “to” to “intended for” ? ___ TLS mailing list

Re: [TLS] Publication of draft-rhrd-tls-tls13-visibility-00

I see, thank you, it seems that there is a lot of archeological work to be done. Ok at least I can organize my work as perhaps a good first step home work before being in a position to comment further > Le 5 oct. 2017 à 11:12, Stephen Farrell a écrit : > > > >

Re: [TLS] Publication of draft-rhrd-tls-tls13-visibility-00

On 05/10/17 09:54, Arnaud Taddei wrote: > Being new to this community, can I actually ask for the analysis of > the ‘hundred’s of applications’ which lead to the evolution of TLS > 1.3 the way it is today? Was it captured somewhere or shall I > reconstruct this history from all the discussions

Re: [TLS] Publication of draft-rhrd-tls-tls13-visibility-00

Being new to this community, can I actually ask for the analysis of the ‘hundred’s of applications’ which lead to the evolution of TLS 1.3 the way it is today? Was it captured somewhere or shall I reconstruct this history from all the discussions in the mailing lists? Thank you in advance >