Hi all,
For your information, a new version of this draft (-01) has been updated,
including the following updates:
1. Updated the ‘IANA Considerations’ section with real code points and other
fixes according to IANA experts’ suggestions.
2. Updated several Chinese standard references to
Thanks for the feedback, Roman. Comments in line.
On 9/18/2019 4:40 AM, Roman Danyliw via Datatracker wrote:
** Section 1. Per “More and more services are colocated on multiplexed
servers, loosening the relation between IP address and web service”, completely
agree. IMO, unpacking
Due to my moderately competent use of GitHub, draft-06 does not include
the resolution of Mirja's comments. That will be part of the next draft.
Sorry.
-- Christian Huitema
On 9/18/2019 2:09 PM, Christian Huitema wrote:
OK, I just submitted draft-06. As the automated message says:
The IETF
On 9/18/2019 9:07 AM, Alissa Cooper via Datatracker wrote
Section 1:
s/servers rely on the Service Name Information (SNI) TLS extension/servers rely
on the Server Name Indication (SNI) TLS extension [RFC 6066]/
Yes of course.
Section 2.1:
Why is parental controls in quotes?
Removing the
On 9/18/2019 11:18 AM, Adam Roach wrote:
No worries!
I'd work with the responsible AD to coordinate when to publish a new
version.
I do have one comment below -- regarding the multi-party security
context -- that isn't really editorial and which isn't addressed in
the github version. Do
OK, I just submitted draft-06. As the automated message says:
The IETF datatracker status page for this draft is:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-sni-encryption/
There are also htmlized versions available at:
https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-tls-sni-encryption-06
A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts directories.
This draft is a work item of the Transport Layer Security WG of the IETF.
Title : Issues and Requirements for SNI Encryption in TLS
Authors : Christian Huitema
Hi Yaron,
Thank you for your thorough review. My answers will be inline, and I'll
incorporate some of Ben's replies if necessary. Here's a PR with proposed
changes in response to your comments:
https://github.com/tlswg/tls-exported-authenticator/pull/52
On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 12:59 PM Yaron
No worries!
I'd work with the responsible AD to coordinate when to publish a new
version.
I do have one comment below -- regarding the multi-party security
context -- that isn't really editorial and which isn't addressed in the
github version. Do you have any thoughts on it? Am I just
Thanks, Adam
I appreciate the feedback, and in fact I need to apologize. We have a
new version of the draft ready at
https://github.com/tlswg/sniencryption, which takes into account the
comments received before Saturday 15, but does not take into account the
latest round of comments from Alissa,
Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tls-sni-encryption-05: 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 refer
On Tue, Sep 17, 2019, at 7:03 PM, Martin Thomson wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2019, at 00:56, Christopher Wood wrote:
> > > In thinking about the first point, we might want to consider whether
> > > the KDF that is used in the importer might need to be used in other
> > > ways.
> >
> > To be
Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tls-sni-encryption-05: 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 refer
13 matches
Mail list logo
