Robert Cragie wrote:
> I was told it wouldn't receive much interest because it is based on TLS
> 1.2 and the current focus is very much on 1.3. The aim is to get an
> informational RFC out shortly.
>
I'm looking forward to the RFC and I would be happy to offer
On Feb 15, 2016 11:02 AM, "Brian Smith" wrote:
>
> Robert Cragie wrote:
>>
>> I was told it wouldn't receive much interest because it is based on TLS
1.2 and the current focus is very much on 1.3. The aim is to get an
informational RFC out
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 11:54 AM, Watson Ladd wrote:
> PAKE in SSL has always been a solution in search of a problem.
>
Browsers do not have UI elements compatible with PAKE (unless someone cares
to bring up the basic auth dialog, in which case I'd simply suggest please
The big assumption here is that SSL/TLS is used solely in browsers. That is
not how it is being used in Thread, for example, and indeed in other
similar technologies. In Thread, it is used for local device authentication
and authorisation. These use cases clearly benefit from a PAKE, i.e.
getting
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 4:33 PM, Robert Cragie
wrote:
> The big assumption here is that SSL/TLS is used solely in browsers.
>
In literally every one of the non-browser SSL/TLS contexts I use today, I
do not use passwords (preferring client certs instead). The main