This update resolves the comments that I posted on the previous version.
Thanks.
Russ
From: TLS mailto:tls-boun...@ietf.org>> On Behalf Of
Joseph Salowey
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 5:59 PM
To: mailto:tls@ietf.org>> mailto:tls@ietf.org>>
Subject: [TLS] 2nd WGLC for Delegated Credentials for
Hi Joe, Hi draft authors,
I reviewed draft-ietf-tls-subcerts-09 and the document is well written and easy
to understand.
I have only a minor remark regarding the validity time of the delegated
credential.
In Section 3 you say
"
In
the absence of an application profile standard
One question: Wouldn’t you want to register a flag for "Post-Handshake Client
Authentication" in this document?
Ciao
Hannes
From: TLS On Behalf Of Hannes Tschofenig
Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2020 5:55 PM
To: Yoav Nir ;
Subject: Re: [TLS] Proposed change in TLS-Flags
Yoav,
I looked at the
Yoav,
I looked at the draft and the PR. I am fine with the proposed changes.
This is a short and useful draft.
Ciao
Hannes
From: TLS On Behalf Of Yoav Nir
Sent: Monday, June 29, 2020 11:34 PM
To:
Subject: [TLS] Proposed change in TLS-Flags
Hi
I’ve just submitted the following PR:
Hi Tommy, Hi David, Hi Chris,
I read through the draft and have a few questions.
1) Is it really necessary for the client to use two values to differentiate the
tickets it wants with a new session and with resumption. It feels a bit
over-designed. I would just have one value and that alone
Thanks for the context, everyone!
Based on that, PR looks good to me. Ship it!
David
On Tue, Jun 30, 2020 at 9:18 PM Martin Thomson wrote:
> More to the point, this makes it more difficult to analyze relative to an
> empty "flag" extension of the likes we currently use.
>
> I haven't
I don’t know. There already is an extension for this.
We haven’t discussed whether we want to “cover” semantics that already exist in
other extensions.
If that’s something the group wants, we can add it, but it’s not generally a
good thing for a protocol to have two ways of expressing the same
On Wed, Jul 01, 2020 at 04:52:18PM +, Hannes Tschofenig wrote:
> Hi Tommy, Hi David, Hi Chris,
>
> I read through the draft and have a few questions.
>
> 1) Is it really necessary for the client to use two values to
> differentiate the tickets it wants with a new session and with
>
Yes I did mean to send this to tls not cfrg - I had just sent mail there and
did not look hard.
> -Original Message-
> From: Christopher Wood
> Sent: Wednesday, July 1, 2020 2:09 PM
> To: Jim Schaad
> Subject: Re: [Cfrg] Review of draft-ietf-tls-external-psk-guidance-00
>
> (-lists)
>
