M K Saravanan writes:
>Is this allowed? i.e. stripping the leading zero of the RSA signature and
>marking the length as 255? It is not clear to me from the RFC5246 whether
>it is allowed or not.
It's not allowed according to the spec but a number of implementations do it
because their underly
On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 11:10 AM Peter Gutmann
wrote:
> M K Saravanan writes:
>
> >Is this allowed? i.e. stripping the leading zero of the RSA signature and
> >marking the length as 255? It is not clear to me from the RFC5246
> whether
> >it is allowed or not.
>
> It's not allowed according t
Hi,
I’m looking for some clarification on unsupported_extension vs
illegal_parameter alerts in TLS 1.3.
RFC 8446 says:
If an implementation receives an extension
which it recognizes and which is not specified for the message in
which it appears, it MUST abort the handshake with an
"ill
Dear TLS working group,
We would like to request the working group adopt
draft-stebila-tls-hybrid-design, "Hybrid key exchange in TLS 1.3", as
a working group item. We have updated the draft based on feedback
we've received over the past few months, including from our
presentations at IETF 104 an
On Thu, Feb 13, 2020, at 06:26, Douglas Stebila wrote:
> We would like to request the working group adopt
> draft-stebila-tls-hybrid-design, "Hybrid key exchange in TLS 1.3", as
> a working group item. We have updated the draft based on feedback
> we've received over the past few months, including
I'm jumping in late - so apologies in advance for potential ignorant comments:
On 2/12/20, 3:48 PM, "TLS on behalf of Martin Thomson" wrote:
> Larger public keys and/or ciphertexts - if we need these, we're in serious
> trouble.
> To give you an idea, even at 1k, these will start being much
On Thu, Feb 13, 2020, at 08:44, Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL wrote:
> You saw the key sizes that the NIST PQC candidates require? How would
> you suggest dealing with them unless there's support for larger public
> keys?
Only a few of them. Some are OK, but the number is few, I agree. I have
Hiya,
On 12/02/2020 21:57, Martin Thomson wrote:
> Only a few of them. Some are OK, but the number is few, I agree. I
> haven't found a good summary of the second round candidates and I
> don't have time to dig into all of the candidates.
Fine reason to wait and see IMO.
I'd be much happier ad
I don't expect you to be knowledgeable about 25+ proposed algorithms.
I expect you to be knowledgeable about the ballpark of the new key sizes that
practically all of the candidates use. The shortest keys are in the ballpark of
a few KB, and I won't go into the size of the largest ones.
You may
+1 Agreeing with Stephen is new to me but there is a first time for
everything. ;-)
Darin
-Original Message-
From: TLS On Behalf Of Stephen Farrell
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2020 4:50 PM
To: Martin Thomson ; Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL
; tls@ietf.org
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Re: [
> At a high level, I think that this would be easier if it were more clearly
> framed as *recommendations*
I'm brand new to the IETF, so please forgive me if I'm totally off base here,
but my understanding is that Informational RFCs are explicitly not
recommendations (let alone mandates)?
Per
On Thu, Feb 13, 2020, at 10:01, Carrick Bartle wrote:
> I'm brand new to the IETF, so please forgive me if I'm totally off base
> here, but my understanding is that Informational RFCs are explicitly
> not recommendations (let alone mandates)?
This would of course be information, but my comment w
On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 3:23 PM Martin Thomson wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 13, 2020, at 10:01, Carrick Bartle wrote:
> > I'm brand new to the IETF, so please forgive me if I'm totally off base
> > here, but my understanding is that Informational RFCs are explicitly
> > not recommendations (let alone ma
Hiya,
On 12/02/2020 22:57, Blumenthal, Uri - 0553 - MITLL wrote:
> I don't expect you to be knowledgeable about 25+ proposed
> algorithms.
I didn't mean it was you forcing that on me, but if you
want to give it a shot... :-)
>
> I expect you to be knowledgeable about the ballpark of the new k
On Wed, Feb 12, 2020 at 11:26 AM Douglas Stebila wrote:
> Dear TLS working group,
>
> We would like to request the working group adopt
> draft-stebila-tls-hybrid-design, "Hybrid key exchange in TLS 1.3", as
> a working group item. We have updated the draft based on feedback
> we've received over
15 matches
Mail list logo
