@BRIAN_____ You know what... I'm willing to draw some fire. I'll ask the other authors, ADs, and maybe WG...
-
-
Replying to @ralphholz
@ralphholz I think the problem was that there was a point at which it was decided it was more important to be finished than to be right.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BRIAN_____
@BRIAN_____ That's wrong. It was: if we MUST NOT DH1024, there are many servers that can't implement it, which is counter to a BCP's intent.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ralphholz
@ralphholz Did anybody present data showing that there are a large # of real-world connections by clients that can't do 2048 bits or ECDHE?2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BRIAN_____
@BRIAN_____ Data, I don't think so. Although I'd guess@zakirbpd 's data shows it now. In the IETF, I recall enough being against it.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ralphholz
@ralphholz I don't think many people would make an argument for recommending 1024-bit DHE as option #3 today, at least.3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BRIAN_____
@BRIAN_____@ralphholz You miss the NSS calls, don't you? ;)1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@sleevi_ @ralphholz On my very first NSS teleconference call, 512-bit DHE was the topic I raised. Just got shouted down, basically.
-
-
Replying to @BRIAN_____
@BRIAN_____@sleevi_ I had a similar experience for announcing we were about to MUST NOT the NULL cipher and RC4... monitoring guys...0 replies 0 retweets 0 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.