Re: [TLS] DTLS for Delegated Credentials (draft-ietf-tls-subcerts)?

2022-02-23 Thread Hannes Tschofenig
Hi Sean, Hi all, I think the document should also include a reference to DTLS since there is no reason that sub-certs do not apply to DTLS as well. Ciao Hannes -Original Message- From: TLS On Behalf Of Sean Turner Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2022 9:26 PM To: TLS List Subject:

Re: [TLS] dnssec_chain entry in IANA registry seems to be missing CT

2022-02-23 Thread Salz, Rich
>It is probably "best" (for some definition of "best") to publish an RFC that Updates: 9102 and has the revised directive to IANA. I hope that is excessive. >Probably an errata report should be filed against RFC 9102 regardless. IANA might be able to use the errata report without

Re: [TLS] tlsflags and "responses"

2022-02-23 Thread Yoav Nir
Hi. I have merged the PR following review and proposed changes by Chris and Martin Thomson. The only point that remains open is Ekr’a suggestion to allow (require?) sending the extension when empty. Yoav > On 22 Feb 2022, at 7:35, Yoav Nir wrote: > > I have just submitted PR #20 to allow

Re: [TLS] Adoption call for draft-salowey-tls-rfc8447bis

2022-02-23 Thread Salz, Rich
Oops. Reply over reply-all, not common :) On 2/23/22, 12:34 PM, "Christopher Wood" wrote: Oops — I think you accidentally replied only to me. Would you mind replying on the list as well? > On Feb 19, 2022, at 7:23 AM, Salz, Rich wrote: > >> Following up on the TLS WG

Re: [TLS] dnssec_chain entry in IANA registry seems to be missing CT

2022-02-23 Thread Eric Rescorla
On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 6:25 AM Salz, Rich wrote: > >It is probably "best" (for some definition of "best") to publish an > RFC > that Updates: 9102 and has the revised directive to IANA. > > I hope that is excessive. > > >Probably an errata report should be filed against RFC 9102

Re: [TLS] Adoption call for draft-salowey-tls-rfc8447bis

2022-02-23 Thread Eric Rescorla
I support adoption. On Wed, Feb 23, 2022 at 10:45 AM Salz, Rich wrote: > Oops. Reply over reply-all, not common :) > > On 2/23/22, 12:34 PM, "Christopher Wood" wrote: > > Oops — I think you accidentally replied only to me. Would you mind > replying on the list as well? > > > On Feb

Re: [TLS] Adoption call for draft-salowey-tls-rfc8447bis

2022-02-23 Thread Martin Thomson
Adopt. I found the changes from 8447 hard to find without a diff: https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=rfc8447=draft-salowey-tls-rfc8447bis-01 Some comments on the content: * Recommended = D requires standards action. I think that you might want IETF consensus instead. * A lot of the "changes"

Re: [TLS] Adoption call for draft-salowey-tls-rfc8447bis

2022-02-23 Thread Martin Thomson
One additional bug I noticed: Exporter Value | Recommended | |-| client finished | Y | server finished | Y | master secret | Y | key expansion |