I don't think that this is the right answer.
Let's separate out the question of (a) what people need to support and (b)
what the code points mean. (b) needs to be unambigous, as that's the point
of the extension and this PR actually makes it explicitly unambigous.
With that said, there seem to
Hi Peter,
Yes, that sentence is what made me think it must be over decrypted messages but
I wanted to double check as it's not clearly stated.
Thanks for confirming!
Hubert
On 11/21/17 19:59, Peter Wu wrote:
Hi Hubert,
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 07:38:16PM -0800, Le Van Gong, Hubert wrote:
Hi Hubert,
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 07:38:16PM -0800, Le Van Gong, Hubert wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> Probably a trivial question but is the transcript hash (during handhsake)
> calculated over decrypted versions of messages like EncryptedExtensions or
> certificate or is it done over the
Hi,
At the moment there is still ambiguity in the requirements for PSS with
relation to certificates. Proposal to clarify this:
https://github.com/tlswg/tls13-spec/pull/1098
This PR intends to clarify the requirements for PSS support.
The requirements are intentionally minimal to reduce
Greetings,
Probably a trivial question but is the transcript hash (during
handhsake) calculated over decrypted versions of messages like
EncryptedExtensions or certificate or is it done over the raw/encrypted
messages?
I could not find an exact confirmation in the spec.
Cheers,
Hubert
Hello,
On 6.11.2017 20:19, Eric Rescorla wrote:
Once you do this, the middleboxes seem to mostly ignore everything
after the CCS, so the rest of the handshake proceeds smoothly.
This is all a bit nasty, but none of it changes the cryptographic
computations or the state machine (because you
On 21/11/17 23:39, Martin Thomson wrote:
> IESG action seems appropriate for both.
I'm fairly sure the WG discussed the No->Yes (or new Yes)
before and wanted standards action for that. I'd guess
that changing that might take some discussion. (FWIW, I'd
not support that change myself but
IESG action seems appropriate for both. If we could include guidance
around this (values with Yes should only include those for which the
community currently has consensus are worth having available at the
current time), tat would be awesome.
On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 7:37 AM, Stephen Farrell
Hiya,
I just posted a draft shepherd write-up for this [1]. (The
write-up text was mostly written by Sean as it happens - for
which he has my thanks as it's boring as hell to do that:-)
There are nits but only one substantive question that I don't
recall the WG discussing before (but maybe I'm
