Re: [TLS] WGLC for draft-ietf-tls-record-limit

2018-01-22 Thread Hubert Kario
On Monday, 22 January 2018 14:39:31 CET Hubert Kario wrote: > On Monday, 22 January 2018 06:12:30 CET Sean Turner wrote: > > All,’ > > > > This is the working group last call for the "Record Size Limit Extension > > for TLS" draft available at > >

Re: [TLS] WGLC for draft-ietf-tls-record-limit

2018-01-22 Thread Russ Housley
> This is the working group last call for the "Record Size Limit Extension for > TLS" draft available at > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-record-limit/. Please review > the document and send your comments to the list by 6 February 2018. Section 2: Please update the paragraph

[TLS] Update on draft-ietf-tls-dnssec-chain-extension

2018-01-22 Thread Joseph Salowey
The authors will be posting a new version (-06) that replaces some text that was missed in the previous version that addressed the WGLC comments. The -06 version will be sent to the IESG for publication. Cheers, Joe ___ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org

Re: [TLS] WGLC for draft-ietf-tls-record-limit

2018-01-22 Thread Martin Thomson
On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 3:42 AM, Ilari Liusvaara wrote: > Since the count includes the content type byte in TLS 1.3, the maximum > value for TLS 1.3 is 16385 bytes, not 2^14=16384. Yes, the editor's copy says: For TLS 1.2 and earlier, that limit is 2^14 octets. TLS 1.3

Re: [TLS] WGLC for draft-ietf-tls-record-limit

2018-01-22 Thread Martin Thomson
On Tue, Jan 23, 2018 at 12:39 AM, Hubert Kario wrote: > I don't see description of expected behaviour during session resumption. The editor's copy says: During renegotiation or resumption, the record size limit is renegotiated. Records are subject to the limits that were set

Re: [TLS] WGLC for draft-ietf-tls-record-limit

2018-01-22 Thread Sean Turner
> On Jan 23, 2018, at 05:06, Russ Housley wrote: > > The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", > "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and > "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP >

Re: [TLS] WGLC for draft-ietf-tls-record-limit

2018-01-22 Thread Ilari Liusvaara
On Mon, Jan 22, 2018 at 04:12:30PM +1100, Sean Turner wrote: > All,’ > > This is the working group last call for the "Record Size Limit > Extension for TLS" draft available at > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-record-limit/. > Please review the document and send your comments to

Re: [TLS] WGLC for draft-ietf-tls-record-limit

2018-01-22 Thread Hubert Kario
On Monday, 22 January 2018 06:12:30 CET Sean Turner wrote: > All,’ > > This is the working group last call for the "Record Size Limit Extension for > TLS" draft available at > http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-record-limit/. Please > review the document and send your comments to the

[TLS] Application Transport LAyer Security (ATLAS)

2018-01-22 Thread Hannes Tschofenig
Hi all, around the last IETF meeting we had a good discussion on the list regarding application layer TLS, as proposed in draft-friel-tls-over-http-00 and various other drafts. For the next IETF meeting we are planning to request a BOF to have a dedicated timeslot allocated. For upfront