issues
search
lwig-wg
/
protocol-comparison
Other
0
stars
0
forks
source link
issues
Newest
Newest
Most commented
Recently updated
Oldest
Least commented
Least recently updated
Check if drafts not adopted by WG should be removed.
#38
emanjon
opened
6 months ago
0
RFC9528 and RFC9529
#37
emanjon
closed
6 months ago
1
Remove editor's note on cTLS and P-256
#36
emanjon
opened
1 year ago
1
Early Iotdir review by Russ Housley
#35
emanjon
closed
7 months ago
3
Comments during IOTOPS session
#34
emanjon
closed
1 year ago
3
Group OSCORE message sizes in -iotops-security-protocol-comparison
#33
emanjon
closed
1 year ago
0
Comment from Michael Richardsson
#32
emanjon
closed
1 year ago
1
Align with draft-ietf-tls-ctls-08
#31
emanjon
closed
1 year ago
1
Comment from AKRAM SHERIFF
#30
emanjon
closed
1 year ago
1
Mention that fragmentation increases overhead.
#29
emanjon
closed
1 year ago
0
Mention that cTLS overhead in Table 1 is likely to decrease in the future.
#28
emanjon
closed
1 year ago
1
Comments from Erik Kline: Mention RFC 8824
#27
emanjon
closed
1 year ago
2
Verify overhead with cTLS
#26
emanjon
closed
1 year ago
0
cTLS numbers missing record layer overhead
#25
emanjon
closed
1 year ago
1
Verify overhead with draft-ietf-core-oscore-edhoc
#24
emanjon
closed
1 year ago
1
Maybe remove the odd term ICV
#23
emanjon
closed
1 year ago
1
Comments from Achim Kraus
#22
emanjon
closed
1 year ago
5
TLS ECDSA signature are larger than 64 bytes and secp256r1 is 65 bytes
#21
emanjon
closed
1 year ago
2
Add links to other useful documents
#20
emanjon
closed
1 year ago
1
Add more text to introduction
#19
emanjon
closed
1 year ago
1
ECC Point compression is not supported in (any) TLS implementation
#18
emanjon
closed
1 year ago
2
Issue #10 - Comment from Stephan Koch
#17
emanjon
closed
1 year ago
0
Add reference to draft-ietf-uta-tls13-iot-profile?
#16
emanjon
closed
1 year ago
3
Should Group OSCORE be added?
#15
emanjon
closed
1 year ago
1
Should QUIC and Datagram QUIC be added?
#14
emanjon
closed
1 year ago
1
Wrong that just minimum packet is considered
#13
emanjon
closed
1 year ago
1
Numbers for DTLS 1.3 with large sequence numbers is wrong
#12
emanjon
closed
1 year ago
0
Align numbers with final DTLS 1.3 as well as latest version of EDHOC
#11
emanjon
closed
1 year ago
1
Comment from Stephan Koch
#10
emanjon
closed
1 year ago
1
Unicode names
#9
emanjon
closed
1 year ago
0
Update references
#8
emanjon
closed
1 year ago
1
Add Token Reuse to OSCORE DTLS comparision
#7
emanjon
closed
1 year ago
2
Add more examples for cTLS
#6
emanjon
closed
1 year ago
4
Add numbers for EDHOC
#5
emanjon
closed
5 years ago
0
Calclulate numbers for TLS 1.2 and DTLS 1.2
#4
emanjon
closed
1 year ago
3
Move repository to LWIG
#3
emanjon
closed
5 years ago
0
Add Group Oscore (two party) to document
#2
emanjon
closed
1 year ago
1
DTLS 1.3 Client_Hello contains legacy_cookie (1 byte)
#1
emanjon
closed
5 years ago
0