Hi,
I'm still not sure about the list/vector rename. Aside from that, here's
what I found:
> It tightens some requirements and contains
> updated text in areas which were found to be unclear as well as other
> editorial improvements.
"It contains clarifications and tightened requirements."
Hiya,
On 05/04/2023 02:47, Sean Turner wrote:
A post IETF 116 bump to make sure folks get their reviews in. If you
look at the diffs from RFC 8446 you can see not that much has
changed. We will also take “I read it and it looks good” response.
I looked at the diff between 8446bis-07 and 8446
A post IETF 116 bump to make sure folks get their reviews in. If you look at
the diffs from RFC 8446 you can see not that much has changed. We will also
take “I read it and it looks good” response.
Cheers,
spt
> On Mar 28, 2023, at 21:00, Christopher Wood wrote:
>
> As mentioned during
On Saturday, 1 April 2023 03:50:04 CEST, Krzysztof Kwiatkowski wrote:
I would pair secp384r1 with Kyber768 for completely different reasons:
Kyber768 is what the team kyber recommends.
Agreed.
I don't think there are very good reasons for NIST curves here outside
wanting CNSA1 compliance, and
