[TLS] Missing updates in our RFCS?
Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com> Mon, 30 November 2020 00:51 UTC
Return-Path: <watsonbladd@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D4E23A0B58
for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 29 Nov 2020 16:51:45 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5
tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1,
DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001,
SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44])
by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id Qx2-25aie5gO for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>;
Sun, 29 Nov 2020 16:51:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lf1-x12b.google.com (mail-lf1-x12b.google.com
[IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::12b])
(using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A98903A097C
for <tls@ietf.org>; Sun, 29 Nov 2020 16:51:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lf1-x12b.google.com with SMTP id d8so17830657lfa.1
for <tls@ietf.org>; Sun, 29 Nov 2020 16:51:43 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
bh=cHIV81QqRPnM8mN56AUwhVXig6BqQn5VZjHnFQKETqA=;
b=YmOEFBqa1hiA2qZaXGeyGQeUp6gxeU0X3laYphqQcndlukRpRZ5McujxCNy8K2NRO2
CQ+QtUA8FBGwy7LXqU+Pk6eeGXRh0lvb3mS43Cr9iCVsm8tQFK7EQSXExiAzn4e1XgRr
ompyk9KcVaLWXVmK5VcMyhzxJomtDQ7Dfyk3GOnkan44RgdI0IhseAegZl/apgt5Mqs0
kaXU5pyG4dYMl8B90PYSq2Z14rA/Fjjv5l2idDHa9umWGL9C6jyO44zMHWv8CaRuh9M/
0k1R+jDtZYSVtcFPEse4mC0eqWSbepcszYvl491/5oQV8W1hwuLrICcn+qFqKyJaZeyj
GhCw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
bh=cHIV81QqRPnM8mN56AUwhVXig6BqQn5VZjHnFQKETqA=;
b=agOYhFMLUTLQrnmB2N1LVvypahEw6+wDAjTws9EQH1X4/fhCwTA8rkgWUJNZbfET42
BM9OkfMdQMhVQjjQohr33Wqd6m3qEwPF9x/7y+XcQ1iYgQK5yT2l2WTgS3EssTEr0qLX
ejWs+VtXaFlSdIXmhweT7SLT0BnG4VS6im79eyUsxbMDX/7Drg79c+doq1Htv/510ckp
p7uTzSaZFR8LR8Rw4WAwvzWpk/NEns4Iy1z/Or0z2xU2Cgz6T8AAMcYZLOwWzSIv+lTq
aq288w8Qh6L+0rldc5rxYyu5q0kqVEFpsjGOMWUCl4lbD55qfXa83WvgccK30Iq2itMb
jAlA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533E2v0d5dKDEvdsd6giB28MfHoLWyer++RmjPeehvcoMW+WKf20
gk2xQlHj7Y7nJAljsy6TgBPPSJU4qhxjM+tiN183I/fllZo=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxJSCwKCgGdtTEGNEfmituQC0bFXbQfexbmZlVBy/XhPVNKmstxjYLtSv+COGUdY9kiPcO/c1xFDiXRJ65dOe8=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:3e7:: with SMTP id
n7mr7747996lfq.585.1606697501150;
Sun, 29 Nov 2020 16:51:41 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
From: Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 29 Nov 2020 16:51:30 -0800
Message-ID: <CACsn0cmzJ_1u5481P4Odr=L6A6mUw5NiB4zR_mwrkdJF1dSZSA@mail.gmail.com>
To: TLS List <tls@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/fkKPAXw-KQz33EUchx-EA8-BFzQ>
Subject: [TLS] Missing updates in our RFCS?
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working
group of the IETF." <tls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tls>,
<mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tls/>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>,
<mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2020 00:51:45 -0000
Dear TLS WG, I think RFC 7627 should update 5056, 5705, and maybe a few more. I noticed these omissions when looking at the kitten draft to use TLS 1.3 exporters. Having these updates would hopefully make clear what uses need to be updated, or at least show where there might be a problem. Sincerely, Watson -- Astra mortemque praestare gradatim
- [TLS] Missing updates in our RFCS? Watson Ladd
- Re: [TLS] Missing updates in our RFCS? - what doe… Olle E. Johansson
- Re: [TLS] Missing updates in our RFCS? - what doe… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [TLS] Missing updates in our RFCS? - what doe… Olle E. Johansson
- Re: [TLS] Missing updates in our RFCS? - what doe… Marc Petit-Huguenin
- Re: [TLS] Missing updates in our RFCS? - what doe… Olle E. Johansson
- Re: [TLS] Missing updates in our RFCS? - what doe… Marc Petit-Huguenin
- Re: [TLS] Missing updates in our RFCS? - what doe… Eric Rescorla
- Re: [TLS] Missing updates in our RFCS? - what doe… Olle E. Johansson