Looking closer, all what we discuss here is related to ECDH, so the sign of
a point is not important for the result.
In this case the compression can be a simple truncation to , e.g.
without the need to do tricks with the private key to make this an
unambiguous representation of a point. This
Hi Jonathan,
Am Dienstag, dem 26.10.2021 um 17:32 +0100 schrieb Jonathan Hoyland:
> Hi Sam, all,
>
> I'd like to again raise the issues I pointed out in
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/kitten/13pPj4E3-gYwpbu2K844uI1BPoU/
> .
> This draft hasn't received enough security analysis, and
Hi Sam, all,
I'd like to again raise the issues I pointed out in
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/kitten/13pPj4E3-gYwpbu2K844uI1BPoU/ .
This draft hasn't received enough security analysis, and further, I pointed
out a specific security issue that remains unaddressed.
Using the same label
At least for an erratum, I don't think it makes sense to change that as
part of this.
I think your question is conflating a few things. Let me try to untangle
this, as this document is little confusing. It seems to be describing, via
SHOULDs and MUSTs, three different implementation profiles
Hi,
I agree that the "Recommended" column in the IANA registry (which is
frequently misunderstood)
should just be renamed to "IETF Consensus". Obvious and self-explanatory.
Cheers,
- Ira
On Tue, Oct 26, 2021 at 10:45 AM Hannes Tschofenig <
hannes.tschofe...@arm.com> wrote:
> Rich, this makes
Dear list,
This email is in regards to draft-celi-wiggers-tls-authkem.
We’ve only made some minor fixes to the authentication-via-KEM proposal
that we submitted and presented at the last IETF meeting (IETF111) at the
working group. We did receive a few questions and comments on the draft
during
Rich, this makes more sense. Maybe the column should say "IETF Consensus"
(Y/N) instead of Recommended.
In any case, the draft should say what recommended means for the flags values.
-Original Message-
From: TLS On Behalf Of Salz, Rich
Sent: Tuesday, October 26, 2021 3:19 PM
To: Ilari
The Recommended column is "was this done via IETF consensus." Some of the
values you think are odd are from pre-1.3, done by consensus, even if the
protocol is now outdated by 1.3
If there are some 1.0 and 1.1 extensions that are not defined in 1.2, then that
deprecation draft should suggest
Glad to help
From: Thomas Fossati
Date: Monday, October 25, 2021 at 9:41 AM
To: Rich Salz
Cc: Achim Kraus , Hanno Böck ,
"tls@ietf.org"
Subject: Re: [TLS] DTLS RRC and heartbeat
Rich, Hanno, Mohit,
Thanks a lot for your excellent input. We are going to follow your
advice and avoid
