On 21/11/2019 08:59, Matt Caswell wrote:
> If you take the line that "anything specified for TLSv1.2 is implicitly
> ok for DTLSv1.2 unless stated otherwise", then I at least think an RFC
> should have a minimal nod towards DTLS. At least to give the message
> that "yes, we have considered this in a DTLS setting and its fine". As
> you state above there are exceptions, so we do need to consider this on
> a case-by-case basis. In the case of RFC8422, as a minimum I would have
> expected that to be in the form of a sentence saying that those entries
> should have DTLS-OK against them in section 9 - especially as the
> following paragraph *does* say this for the "Intrinsic" HashAlgorithm
> registry entry (rather implying by omission that this doesn't hold for
> ed25519/ed448).
Is the correct way ahead with this to raise it as an erratum on the RFC?
I am still not entirely convinced that its not just an error in the
registry. But IMO *somewhere* between those two there is an error.
Matt
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
