Hi Francesca, > Then I guess 53 will become unassigned, no need to reserve it, right?
After a "reserved period", yes. If that value is then assigned for TLS or DTLS 1.3 only, then that period may be very short. If that value is assigned also for DTLS 1.2 (again), I would prefer a longer "reserved period", e.g. 12 months. (That's just my personal preference.) Best regards Achim Kraus Am 21.04.21 um 10:29 schrieb Francesca Palombini:
Hi Hannes, Achim, Thanks, that's all I was curious about! No need to add that to the IANA considerations, this was more of a question on my side. Then I guess 53 will become unassigned, no need to reserve it, right? Thomas: thanks for creating the issue - I will track there. Francesca On 21/04/2021, 08:00, "Hannes Tschofenig" <[email protected]> wrote: Hi Francesca, ~ snip ~ 5. ----- Section 10.2 FP: Just checking - why is 53 "incompatible with this document"? [Hannes] Maybe someone responded already regarding this point. I don't know whether it is good or bad practice to provide all this background in the IANA considerations but the story here is (if I recall it correctly) that we initially assigned the value 53 and implementations used in deployments use 53. Then, late in the process we changed the MAC calculation in Section 5... Ciao Hannes IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
