Hi! I submitted the following PR to address the point Rich and ekr discussed
about an ambiguity in s15 of -rfc8447bis:
https://github.com/tlswg/rfc8447bis/pull/56
Cheers,
spt
___
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
To me, it looks like we have rough agreement to change the note as specified in
the PR.
spt
> On Mar 28, 2024, at 10:52, Sean Turner wrote:
>
>
>
> **WARNING: Potential bikeshed**
>
> -connolly-tls-mlkem-key-agreement has suggested that code points for the NIS
Ted & ErikN,
So it looks like ErikN submitted the following PR and ekr approved:
https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-svcb-ech/pull/1
If we have resolved your comments, can I ask on of the authors to spin a new
version and we can look to move this I-D.
Also, could I kindly ask you to revise
Noted in the Shepherd write-up.
spt
> On Apr 2, 2024, at 20:30, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
>
> Hiya,
>
> This is basically for the record and not an objection to proceeding.
>
> On 02/04/2024 17:34, Sean Turner wrote:
>> This WGLC has concluded. There is c
Martin,
Thanks for this. This was noted in the Shepherd write-up for the IESG to find
during their deliberations.
Cheers,
spt
> On Apr 3, 2024, at 23:14, Martin Thomson wrote:
>
> Hey,
>
> I'm writing this in my capacity as owner for NSS[1], not as a draft author.
>
> The chairs asked that
Sean Turner has requested publication of draft-ietf-tls-keylogfile-01 as
Informational on behalf of the TLS working group.
Please verify the document's state at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-keylogfile/
___
TLS mailing list
TLS
At the IETF 119 TLS session there was some interest in the mTLS Flag I-D
(https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-jhoyla-req-mtls-flag/); also, see
previous list discussions at [0]. This message is to judge consensus on whether
there is sufficient support to adopt this I-D. If you support
M, Joseph Salowey wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This WGLC has concluded. There is consensus to move this document
>>>> forward. I think there are one or two minor changes proposed that should
>>>> be incorporated into the revision we forward to the IESG.
>>
Hi! You might have seen the DNSDIR and ARTART Directorate reviews recently for
-svcb-ech and -wkech, respectively. The chairs are asking for these now that
the ECH I-D has completed WGLC. We have also requested DNSDIR/DNSOP and
HTTPbis review. Ditto on the HTTPbis review for -svcb-ech.
analysis folks to weigh in on this I-D; we all
know the file’s content are the keys to the kingdom.
Martin: If you can spin a new version, I can get the Shepherd write-up drafted.
spt
> On Mar 28, 2024, at 09:24, Sean Turner wrote:
>
> Just a reminder that this WGLC ends soon!
Hi! I am going to kick off some early reviews from the DNS and HTTP
directorates to see if we get anything back.
spt
> On Mar 27, 2024, at 16:37, internet-dra...@ietf.org wrote:
>
> Internet-Draft draft-ietf-tls-svcb-ech-01.txt is now available. It is a work
> item of the Transport Layer
**WARNING: Potential bikeshed**
-connolly-tls-mlkem-key-agreement has suggested that code points for the NIST
PQ be registered in the TLS Supported Groups IANA registry [1]. Currently [2],
the registry is carved up into three blocks as follows:
Range: 0-255, 512-65535
Registration
Minor suggestion to refer to -rfc84446bis:
https://github.com/tlswg/sslkeylogfile/pull/8
aka let’s make a cluster!
spt
> On Mar 12, 2024, at 10:57, Sean Turner wrote:
>
> This is the working group last call for the SSLKEYLOGFILE Format for TLS
> Internet-Draft [1]. Please ind
Just a reminder that this WGLC ends soon!
spt
> On Mar 12, 2024, at 10:57, Sean Turner wrote:
>
> This is the working group last call for the SSLKEYLOGFILE Format for TLS
> Internet-Draft [1]. Please indicate if you think the I-D is ready to progress
> to the IESG and se
Just a reminder that this WGLC ends soon!
spt
> On Mar 11, 2024, at 18:00, Joseph Salowey wrote:
>
> This is the working group last call for TLS Encrypted Client Hello [1].
> Please indicate if you think the draft is ready to progress to the IESG and
> send any comments to the list by 31
Hi! We’ve got 8 reported errata on DTLS 1.2 (RFC 6347):
https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata_search.php?rfc=6347_status=15=records
that we, the royal we where we is the WG, need to dispatch. By way of
background, the
IESG has the following statement about processing errata on the IETF stream:
I just threw in a couple of PRs to align this I-D with 8446bis & 8447bis, but
forgot to add this issue. I have corrected this now so that we won’t forget
again:
https://github.com/tlswg/tls-flags/issues/36
spt
> On Mar 17, 2024, at 13:53, David Benjamin wrote:
>
> Did this ever get
I suspect that this errata should be rejected. RFC 6125 was published months
after RFC 6066 and that makes this addition feel “new" to me and as such it’s
inappropriate to change through the errata process; see [1].
spt
[1]
Paul,
I think you can mark this one as verified. I don’t think anybody is really
confused by not citing 2446 in the 1st sentence but the quoted sentence is in
RFC 2446 so as suggested the sentence is still true.
spt
> On Oct 19, 2018, at 23:33, RFC Errata System
> wrote:
>
> The following
Hi! This has been lingering for a while, I tend to think we could mark it as
HFDU (hold for document update).
spt
> On Feb 28, 2019, at 16:20, RFC Errata System
> wrote:
>
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8448,
> "Example Handshake Traces for TLS 1.3".
>
>
Paul,
You can go ahead and mark this one as Verified. The name of the 0 value is
“X509”.
spt
> On Mar 7, 2020, at 13:08, RFC Errata System wrote:
>
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC8447,
> "IANA Registry Updates for TLS and DTLS".
>
>
This is the working group last call for the SSLKEYLOGFILE Format for TLS
Internet-Draft [1]. Please indicate if you think the I-D is ready to progress
to the IESG and send any comments to the list by 31 March 2024.
The GH repo for the I-D can be found at [2].
Thanks,
Joe, Deirdre, and Sean
Hi! I submitted two PRs on this I-D:
1. One updates the discussions about the Recommended column values to refer to
draft-ietf-tls-rfc8447bis that John raised:
https://github.com/tlswg/tls-flags/pull/33
2. One updatesRFC 8446 references to draft-ietf-tls-rfc8446bis:
gt;
> Regards,
>
> Jonathan
>
> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-jhoyla-req-mtls-flag-01
>
> On Thu, 29 Feb 2024, 16:05 Sean Turner, wrote:
> The TLS WG is meeting at IETF 119 for 2 hours on Tuesday, March 19, 2024 from
> 0930-1130 (local time) [0
Hi! Friendly reminder that the I-D submission deadline for IETF 119 is [1]:
2024-03-04 (Monday) Internet-Draft submission cut-off (for all Internet-Drafts,
including -00) by UTC 23:59. Upload using the I-D Submission Tool [2]
Cheers,
spt
[1]
The TLS WG is meeting at IETF 119 for 2 hours on Tuesday, March 19, 2024 from
0930-1130 (local time) [0] in the Plaza Terrace Room [2]. The chairs would like
to solicit input from the WG for agenda topics. Please send your agenda topics
request and an estimate for how much time you will need to
> On Jan 25, 2024, at 10:36, Salz, Rich
> wrote:
>
>> Internet-Draft draft-ietf-tls-keylogfile-00.txt is now available. It is a
>> work
>> item of the Transport Layer Security (TLS) WG of the IETF.
>
> I assume this just documents the current format and that therefore existing
>
> On Jan 18, 2024, at 15:56, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
> Processing those is of course worthy (probably) but so is finishing
> existing specs that've been deployed already.
The TLS WG holds the distinction for have the most reported errata (61) [0].
We need to start working through these at
Hi! We are circling back with the authors and expect a revised draft soon-ish.
And yes, I am being vague about the actual time frame.
spt
> On Jan 21, 2024, at 11:02, Arnaud Taddei
> wrote:
>
> +1
>
> From: TLS on behalf of Stephen Farrell
>
> Date: Thursday, 18 January 2024 at 21:56
>
he Transport Layer Security (TLS) WG of the IETF.
>
> Title: IANA Registry Updates for TLS and DTLS
> Authors: Joe Salowey
>Sean Turner
> Name:draft-ietf-tls-rfc8447bis-08.txt
> Pages: 18
> Dates: 2024-01-23
>
> Abstract:
>
> This
Happy 2024! Hoping to close this one out by Monday so get your comment in!
Cheers,
spt
> On Dec 12, 2023, at 08:38, Sean Turner wrote:
>
> Hi! Rich $, Martin T, and ekr have all added some thoughts. Anybody else
> have some thoughts?
>
> spt
>
>> On Dec 6,
FYI the assignments have been made.
spt
> On Dec 12, 2023, at 09:11, Sean Turner wrote:
>
> I should also included a link to the revised PR:
> https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/pull/597
>
> spt
>
>> On Dec 11, 2023, at 22:01, Sean Turner wrote:
&g
I should also included a link to the revised PR:
https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-esni/pull/597
spt
> On Dec 11, 2023, at 22:01, Sean Turner wrote:
>
> I am going to go ahead and forward this. Note that since the “Comments”
> column isn’t a thing until we get 8447bis thro
Hi! Rich $, Martin T, and ekr have all added some thoughts. Anybody else
have some thoughts?
spt
> On Dec 6, 2023, at 11:20, Sean Turner wrote:
>
> Hi! A thread over on the IRTF’s CFRG list, see [0], has resulted in a PR, see
> [1], that includes additional
I am going to go ahead and forward this. Note that since the “Comments” column
isn’t a thing until we get 8447bis through the door the note will follow.
spt
> On Dec 6, 2023, at 14:46, Sean Turner wrote:
>
> Okay a new proposal the ech_outer_extensions registration:
> - Set &quo
pull/49
> On Nov 29, 2023, at 16:09, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
>
> Hiya,
>
> On 27/11/2023 14:35, Sean Turner wrote:
>> Bumping this up in case anybody missed it.
>
> 'case it helps, I'm fine with the original mail you sent and any of
> "n/a" or "
Hi! A thread over on the IRTF’s CFRG list, see [0], has resulted in a PR, see
[1], that includes additional instructions for the designated experts related
to “Expert Review of Current and Potential IETF and IRTF Documents". Please
let us know what you think about the contents of the PR (here
> On Dec 6, 2023, at 07:57, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
> Signed PGP part
>
>
> On 06/12/2023 05:33, Deirdre Connolly wrote:
>> At the TLS meeting at IETF 118 there was significant support for the draft
>> 'TLS 1.2 is in Feature Freeze' (
>>
> On Dec 6, 2023, at 08:02, Salz, Rich
> wrote:
>
> Yes, I think information regarding if a cipher suite is for TLS 1.3 is very
> needed to have. I already asked for that in
> https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/0gDKfXJvAemFDm7MWcS1DTDVIe8/
>
> In addition, I would also like to
11:37, Sean Turner wrote:
>
> Hi! I am going to go ahead and close this call. While there was a lot of
> mail on this thread, I am going to send the request to IANA because this I-D
> has been around for years and at least one person (a DE) said it was fine.
>
> spt
>
> On Nov 21, 2023, at 21:03, Sean Turner wrote:
>
> Hi! I sent over the early allocation request and the IANA folks rightly
> pointed out two things that need to be added. This email is to make sure we
> have agreement on the two changes to the registrations in s11.1. If you
rk
> item of the Transport Layer Security (TLS) WG of the IETF.
>
> Title: IANA Registry Updates for TLS and DTLS
> Authors: Joe Salowey
>Sean Turner
> Name:draft-ietf-tls-rfc8447bis-07.txt
> Pages: 18
> Dates: 2023-11-27
>
> Abstract:
&
Bumping this up in case anybody missed it.
spt
> On Nov 21, 2023, at 21:03, Sean Turner wrote:
>
> Hi! I sent over the early allocation request and the IANA folks rightly
> pointed out two things that need to be added. This email is to make sure we
> have agreement on
Hi! I am going to go ahead and close this call. While there was a lot of mail
on this thread, I am going to send the request to IANA because this I-D has
been around for years and at least one person (a DE) said it was fine.
spt
> On Nov 6, 2023, at 06:01, Sean Turner wrote:
>
>
> On Nov 17, 2023, at 11:58, Salz, Rich wrote:
>
>>> I assume you are concerned about the ContentType registry. I think it's
>>> okay to add something here.
>
>> Yes that’s the one. I mean we have 240+ spaces, but it is technically one of
>> our more scarce spaces.
>
> Yes but I still think
Hi! I sent over the early allocation request and the IANA folks rightly pointed
out two things that need to be added. This email is to make sure we have
agreement on the two changes to the registrations in s11.1. If you don’t agree
with the values proposed below please let the list know by 1
> On Nov 15, 2023, at 14:12, Salz, Rich wrote:
>
> I assume you are concerned about the ContentType registry. I think it's okay
> to add something here.
Yes that’s the one. I mean we have 240+ spaces, but it is technically one of
our more scarce spaces.
> I missed the detail about the RRC
“scarce” registries.
Thanks,
spt
> On Nov 6, 2023, at 06:01, Sean Turner wrote:
>
> Hi! After discussions with the authors of draft-ietf-tls-dtls-rrc, I would
> like to determine whether there is consensus to request two early code point
> assignments; se
Hi! After discussions with the authors of draft-ietf-tls-dtls-rrc, I would like
to determine whether there is consensus to request two early code point
assignments; see RFC 7120. One is for the return_routability_check content type
and would go in the TLS ContentType registry and one is for the
been through 2
WGLCs). I will kick off an early IANA allocation request for the codes points
Section 10 of the I-D in another email thread.
spt
> On Oct 17, 2023, at 18:36, Sean Turner wrote:
>
> As part of my Shepherd review, I noted two changes that needed to be made:
>
> 1)
> On Oct 31, 2023, at 15:53, Sean Turner wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Oct 30, 2023, at 11:58, Sean Turner wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 18, 2023, at 20:45, Sean Turner wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi! After discussions with the authors of draft-ietf
> On Oct 30, 2023, at 11:58, Sean Turner wrote:
>
>
>> On Sep 18, 2023, at 20:45, Sean Turner wrote:
>>
>> Hi! After discussions with the authors of draft-ietf-tls-esni, Joe and I
>> would like to determine whether there is consensus to request two earl
> On Sep 18, 2023, at 20:45, Sean Turner wrote:
>
> Hi! After discussions with the authors of draft-ietf-tls-esni, Joe and I
> would like to determine whether there is consensus to request two early code
> point assignments; see RFC 7120. One is for the encrypted_client_hel
here:
https://github.com/tlswg/dtls-rrc/pull/65
If you object to these please let me know ASAP!
Cheers,
spt
> On Sep 18, 2023, at 17:03, Sean Turner wrote:
>
> This email starts the 2nd working group last call for "Return Routability
> Check for DTLS 1.2 and DTLS 1.3”
The TLS WG is meeting at IETF 118 for 2 hours on Monday, November 6, 2023 from
0930-1130 (local time) in Congress Hall 1. The chairs would like to solicit
input from the WG for agenda topics. Please send your agenda topics request and
an estimate for how much time you will need to
Just a reminder.
spt
> On Sep 18, 2023, at 17:03, Sean Turner wrote:
>
> This email starts the 2nd working group last call for "Return Routability
> Check for DTLS 1.2 and DTLS 1.3” I-D, located here:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-dtls-rrc
Just a reminder.
spt
> On Sep 18, 2023, at 20:45, Sean Turner wrote:
>
> Hi! After discussions with the authors of draft-ietf-tls-esni, Joe and I
> would like to determine whether there is consensus to request two early code
> point assignments; se
> On Sep 18, 2023, at 21:39, Stephen Farrell wrote:
>
> I wonder if we also need to say something about the ech= SVCB
> parameter value 5 that's reserved at [1]? Not sure, but maybe
> no harm to make that "official" at the same time if possible.
> (There could be current code that assumes that
Hi! Especially for this draft which has been lingering for a while and hasn’t
changed much in a year, the chairs would like to see some positive
confirmations that this I-D is ready to head out the door.
Cheers,
spt
> On Sep 18, 2023, at 17:03, Sean Turner wrote:
>
> This ema
Hi! After discussions with the authors of draft-ietf-tls-esni, Joe and I would
like to determine whether there is consensus to request two early code point
assignments; see RFC 7120. One is for the encrypted_client_hello extension and
one is for the ech_required alert; see s11 of the I-D.
This email starts the 2nd working group last call for "Return Routability Check
for DTLS 1.2 and DTLS 1.3” I-D, located here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-dtls-rrc/
The WG Last Call will end 3 October 2023 @ 2359 UTC.
Please review the I-D and submit issues and pull requests
Just a gentle reminder that “Super Early Registration” end on @23:59 UTC
2023-09-18.
spt
> On Aug 23, 2023, at 09:31, Sean Turner wrote:
>
> FYI
>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>>
>> From: IETF Executive Director
>> Subject: [Recentattendees] Registr
FYI
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: IETF Executive Director
> Subject: [Recentattendees] Registration Open for IETF 118 Prague, 4-10
> November 2023
> Date: August 22, 2023 at 16:24:56 EDT
> To: IETF Announcement List
> Cc: recentattend...@ietf.org
> Reply-To: admin-disc...@ietf.org
>
>
Probably should have done this a while ago, but anyway ….
I have heard that there is at least one DTLS 1.3 implementation available. I
would like to either 1) add DTLS implementations to the GH wiki; see
https://github.com/tlswg/tlswg-wiki/blob/master/IMPLEMENTATIONS.md; or 2) add a
new DTLS
Russ,
Yeah the change looks right. The server is selecting based on what’s in the
ClientHello. Anybody else see it differently?
spt
> On Aug 11, 2023, at 12:35, Russ Housley wrote:
>
> I believe thatthis errata should be verified.
>
>> On Aug 11, 2023, at 12:23 PM, RFC Errata System
>>
> On Jul 23, 2023, at 04:46, bingma2022=40skiff@dmarc.ietf.org wrote:
>
> https://www.ambit.inc/pdf/KyberDrive.pdf It says "Kyber-1024 is known to have
> 254 bits of classical security and 230 bits of quantum security (core-
> SVP hardness)." So the future version of TLS may require triple
Hi! At the IETF 117 TLS session we discussed the following:
* ECH (draft-ietf-tls-esni and draft-ietf-tls-wkech): We learned about existing
deployment experiments with Firefox, Chrome, and Cloudflare. Some issues are
being investigated and more experiments are going to be done, but the
And another gentle reminder.
Cheers,
spt
> On Jul 11, 2023, at 10:42, Sean Turner wrote:
>
> Now that the submission deadline has passed … here’s a gentle reminder!
>
> Cheers,
> spt
>
>> On Jun 18, 2023, at 19:25, Sean Turner wrote:
>>
>> The TLS
Congrats to all who helped to get this done!
spt
> On Jul 13, 2023, at 18:29, rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org wrote:
>
> A new Request for Comments is now available in online RFC libraries.
>
>
>RFC 9345
>
>Title: Delegated Credentials for TLS and DTLS
>Author: R.
> On Jul 11, 2023, at 13:52, Salz, Rich wrote:
>
>> This email starts the working group last call for "Deprecating Obsolete Key
>> Exchange Methods in TLS 1.2” I-D, located here:
>
>> . https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-deprecate-obsolete-kex
>
> Three minor issues and a
This email starts the working group last call for "Deprecating Obsolete Key
Exchange Methods in TLS 1.2” I-D, located here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-deprecate-obsolete-kex/
The WG Last Call will end 25 July 2023 @ 2359 UTC.
Please review the I-D and submit issues and
Now that the submission deadline has passed … here’s a gentle reminder!
Cheers,
spt
> On Jun 18, 2023, at 19:25, Sean Turner wrote:
>
> The TLS WG is planning to meet at IETF 117. A 2 hour slot has been requested,
> but not yet scheduled. The chairs would like to solicit input
The TLS WG is planning to meet at IETF 117. A 2 hour slot has been requested,
but not yet scheduled. The chairs would like to solicit input from the WG for
agenda topics. Please send your agenda topics request and an estimate for how
much time you will need to tls-cha...@ietf.org. Please note
TLS participants: Please strongly consider volunteering for this years NOMCOM.
It’s is not that much time and it is very important to the IETF to have good
people on the NOMCOM. And as you see below, you will get to spend some more
time with Martin.
Cheers,
spt
> Begin forwarded message:
>
>
> On Apr 11, 2023, at 12:50, Salz, Rich wrote:
>
> I am commenting on 8447bis. This document is just about ready to move
> forward, but two fixes are needed.
>
> Why there are Notes still in the doc (e.g., near end of section 6 it says
> about weaker elliptic curves) and think those should
This WG adoption call has ended. There is consensus to adopt this I-D as a WG
item.
Authors: Please submit a WG version when you get the chance.
Cheers,
spt
> On Mar 28, 2023, at 00:54, Sean Turner wrote:
>
> At TLS@IETF116, the sense of the room was that there was WG support
I think we can safely delete this errata.
spt
> On Apr 28, 2023, at 08:01, RFC Errata System
> wrote:
>
> The following errata report has been submitted for RFC7465,
> "Prohibiting RC4 Cipher Suites".
>
> --
> You may review the report below and at:
>
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
At TLS@IETF116, the sense of the room was that there was WG support to adopt
draft-sbn-tls-svcb-ech [1]. This message is to confirm the consensus in the
room. Please indicate whether you do or do not support adoption of this I-D by
2359UTC on 18 April 2023. If do not support adoption, please
FYI: IANA nicely did a review of -rfc8446bis prior to this IETF and suggested a
new section be addd to -rfc84446bis that makes it clear what changes are being
made as a result of that update. That section can be found here:
just want to point of out that at least in the IETF that RFC 9325 [1] was
recently published.
spt
[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc9325/
> On Mar 3, 2023, at 13:40, Eric Rescorla wrote:
>
> Nimrod,
>
> Thanks for bringing this up. I don't think we really have had much of a
>
already sent in their requests.
spt
> On Feb 8, 2023, at 13:24, Sean Turner wrote:
>
> The TLS WG will meet at IETF 116. A 2 hour slot has been requested, but not
> yet scheduled. The chairs would like to solicit input from the WG for agenda
> topics. Please send your agenda
The TLS WG will meet at IETF 116. A 2 hour slot has been requested, but not yet
scheduled. The chairs would like to solicit input from the WG for agenda
topics. Please send your agenda topics request and an estimate for how much
time you will need to tls-cha...@ietf.org. Please note that we
During the tls@IETF 115 session topic covering
draft-ietd-tls-deprecate-obsolete-kex, the sense of the room was that there was
support to deprecate all FFDHE cipher suites including well-known groups. This
message starts the process to judge whether there is consensus to deprecate all
FFDHE
Draft of minutes are posted:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/115/materials/minutes-115-tls-202211100930-00
Please submit any changes by Friday (12/2).
Cheers,
spt
___
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
Please note that this I-D has been abandoned.
spt
> On Nov 10, 2022, at 06:29, Benson Muite wrote:
>
> The above draft has expired. However, if there is still interest in it, the
> EdDSA specification will need to be updated based on findings in [1] and [2].
> An erratum to [3] has been
gt;
>
> The IETF WG state of draft-ietf-tls-batch-signing has been changed to "Dead
> WG Document" from "WG Document" by Sean Turner:
>
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-batch-signing/
>
>
___
TLS mailing list
TLS@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
Hi!
At TLS@IETF115, the sense of the room was that there was WG support to adopt
draft-thomson-tls-keylogfile [1]. This message is to judge consensus on
whether the WG should adopt draft-thomson-tls-keylogfile. Please indicate
whether you do or do not support adoption of this I-D by 2359UTC
Gentle reminder.
Cheers,
spt
> On Oct 12, 2022, at 03:44, Sean Turner wrote:
>
> The TLS WG will meet at IETF 115. A 2 hour slot that has been scheduled for
> Thursday, 10 November 2022, 0930-1130 UTC [0]. The chairs would like to
> solicit input from the WG for agenda topi
The TLS WG will meet at IETF 115. A 2 hour slot that has been scheduled for
Thursday, 10 November 2022, 0930-1130 UTC [0]. The chairs would like to solicit
input from the WG for agenda topics. Please send your agenda topics request and
an estimate for how much time you will need to
Thanks for pulling this together.
spt
> On Aug 17, 2022, at 14:33, Jonathan Hoyland
> wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> I've been putting together a generator for test vectors for DCs.
> This code is available as a PR at
> https://github.com/tlswg/tls-subcerts/pull/119
> The vectors generated are for:
Please consider signing up for the nomcom before Saturday’s deadline.
Cheers,
spt
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: NomCom Chair 2022
> Subject: Third and final call for volunteers
> Date: July 19, 2022 at 15:59:34 EDT
> To: "IETF Announcement List"
> Cc: i...@ietf.org
> Reply-To:
/msg/tls/lcSUgcRwSoL66FfQsVfxEUwxt7k/
> On Jun 8, 2022, at 14:17, Sean Turner wrote:
>
> Hi!
>
> The author of "A well-known URI for publishing ECHConfigList values" [0]
> presented at IETF 113 in dispatch [1]. He was directed to dnsop, but dnsop
> passed on a
The TLS WG will meet at IETF 114. A 2 hour slot that has been scheduled for
Monday, 25 July 2022, 1900-2100 UTC [0]. The chairs would like to solicit input
from the WG for agenda topics. Please send your agenda topics request and an
estimate for how much time you will need to
Hi!
The author of "A well-known URI for publishing ECHConfigList values" [0]
presented at IETF 113 in dispatch [1]. He was directed to dnsop, but dnsop
passed on adopting the I-D. To explore the 2nd option suggested by dispatch,
please send a message to the TLS list by 2359 UTC 23 June 2022
> On May 23, 2022, at 12:33, Martin Duke via Datatracker
> wrote:
>
> Martin Duke has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-tls-subcerts-14: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC
Paul,
Nick spun a new version. I believe the ball is back in your court.
Cheers,
spt
Sent from my iPhone
> On May 11, 2022, at 21:23, Paul Wouters
> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On Wed, May 11, 2022 at 1:08 PM Nick Sullivan wrote:
>> Hi Paul,
>>
>> Thank you for the review. I've put up a PR to
: missing word "use a secure
> with" ; remove one of the duplicated "as its". (Note: this text appears again
> with the same typos for the authenticator in section 5)
We roped Jonathan in and he’s what he had to say:
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: Jonathan Hoy
Belated congrats to all those who contributed!
spt
> Begin forwarded message:
>
> From: rfc-edi...@rfc-editor.org
> Subject: [TLS] RFC 9147 on The Datagram Transport Layer Security (DTLS)
> Protocol Version 1.3
> Date: April 21, 2022 at 18:33:23 EDT
> To: ietf-annou...@ietf.org,
> On Apr 5, 2022, at 09:18, Lars Eggert via Datatracker
> wrote:
>
> Lars Eggert has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-tls-external-psk-importer-07: No Objection
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the
1 - 100 of 580 matches
Mail list logo
