Hi John,
[*] By the way, why not just use “255” in the text instead of “2^8-1”? Eschew
obfuscation!
Which one of these is clearer seems like a question of taste, I should think.
It's worth noting that because the length prefix is determined by the ceiling,
arguably 2^8-1 is clearer.
I don’t
To: John Scudder
Cc: The IESG ; draft-ietf-tls-dtls-connection...@ietf.org;
tls-chairs ; ; Joseph Salowey
Subject: Re: John Scudder's No Objection on
draft-ietf-tls-dtls-connection-id-11: (with COMMENT)
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 2:09 PM John Scudder via Datatracker
mailto:nore...@ietf.org
, April 21, 2021 2:07 AM
To: Eric Rescorla
Cc: The IESG ; draft-ietf-tls-dtls-connection...@ietf.org;
tls-chairs ; tls@ietf.org; Joseph Salowey
Subject: Re: John Scudder's No Objection on
draft-ietf-tls-dtls-connection-id-11: (with COMMENT)
On Apr 20, 2021, at 7:24 PM, Eric Rescorla
mailto:e
HI John,
Am 21.04.21 um 00:42 schrieb John Scudder:
3. Section 6:
* There is a strategy for ensuring that the new peer address
is able
to receive and process DTLS records. No such strategy is
defined
in this specification.
This is a little
On Apr 20, 2021, at 7:24 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 3:42 PM John Scudder
mailto:j...@juniper.net>> wrote:
On Apr 20, 2021, at 5:32 PM, Eric Rescorla
mailto:e...@rtfm.com>> wrote:
3. Section 6:
* There is a strategy for ensuring that the new peer address is able
> On Apr 20, 2021, at 7:33 PM, Rob Sayre wrote:
>
> The ECH (nee ESNI) spec says "All TLS notation comes from [RFC8446], Section
> 3." Something like that should work fine here, in "Conventions and
> Terminology".
Yes, that would be fine from my point of view.
—John
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 3:42 PM John Scudder wrote:
> On Apr 20, 2021, at 5:32 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
> This seems like a pretty basic assumption. These aren't just notational
> conventions
> or pseudo-code. They're the protocol description language that TLS is
> defined in.
> If one isn't
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 3:42 PM John Scudder wrote:
> On Apr 20, 2021, at 5:32 PM, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
> 3. Section 6:
>>
>>* There is a strategy for ensuring that the new peer address is able
>> to receive and process DTLS records. No such strategy is defined
>> in this
On Apr 20, 2021, at 5:32 PM, Eric Rescorla
mailto:e...@rtfm.com>> wrote:
This seems like a pretty basic assumption. These aren't just notational
conventions
or pseudo-code. They're the protocol description language that TLS is defined
in.
If one isn't familiar with how to read this syntax,
On Tue, Apr 20, 2021 at 2:09 PM John Scudder via Datatracker <
nore...@ietf.org> wrote:
> John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-tls-dtls-connection-id-11: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses
John Scudder has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tls-dtls-connection-id-11: No Objection
When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)
Please
11 matches
Mail list logo
